Philosophy and Social Theory: An Introduction to Historical Materialism

~ Valery Deyev

Philosophy
and Social
Theory:

an Introduction

to Historical

Materialism

[In] Progress Publishers

Valery Deyev, Cand. Sc. (Phi-
losophy) and author of a number
of scientific works, specialises in
the history of philosophy and
sociology, and in the present-day
social thought of Europe and
America. For this book, Valery
Deyev has been awarded a spe-
cial diploma by Progress Publish-

ers.

Valery Deyev

Philosophy
and Social
Theory:
an Introduction
to Historical
Materialism

[<]0]
Progress Publishers

Moscow

GUIDES TO SOCIAL SCIENCES

Translated from the Russian by Galina Sdobnikova

Designed by Nikolai Senko

B. A. Jlees

®HJIOCO@IIS 1 COUMAJIbBHAA TEOPHSA:
BBEAEHHE B HCTOPHUECKHH
MATEPHAJIH3M

Ha aneautickom s301Ke

© Wanatenpetso «IIporpecc», 1987
English translation © Progress Publishers 1987

Printed in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

0302020200-—573
014 (01) —87

—87

CONTENTS

————
:

To the Reader . . . . eb s ita Wee oS 5
Chapter One. PHILOSOPHY AND SOCIAL COGNITION . . 6
1. World Outlook. Philosophy. Social Theory . . . . . s - 6
2, Ilistorical Materialism: Its Subject-Matter Defined . . . 12
3. The Basic Problems of Social Theory . . . . . .. . . 16
4. Dialectics and Social Gognition . . 2 1. 1 ee ee ee OD
5. Basic Categories and Concepts . . . i bo Bet ky HAR
6. Historical Materialism and the Social Saisiieee beady 26

Chapter Two. THE ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT OF
MARXIST SOCIAL THEORY .......... 29

1. Theoretical Sources . . fe Qik a? ws. ent ee S29
2. Historical and Social Genditions. ey 34

3. The Founders of the Materialist Theory é Saeial Develop:
ment... ae ie ke oR Se 8
Chapter Three. THE SOCIETY AND HISTORY . . . . . . 50
i. Nature and the Society . 2. 1. 0. ee ee ee ee 80
2. Production . . on is cy RE et Mia cih te. Sy ae eds de 2198.
3. Socio-Economic Pormation fe es tee a’, eo ee le cee 206
4. Ilistory: Diversity and Unity 2... 6. 1 2 ee eee OS
5. The Motive Forces of History . . . 2... 1 ee ee) 85
6. Historical Forms of Community . . . 2... 1. ee 99
Chapter Four. THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE . .... . . 109
1. The Social Structure: The Concept Defined . . . . . . 109
2. Classes and the Social Structure . . Sa es alld
3. Socialism: Towards a New ‘Type of Bueial Stricture bo be oh LE
Chapter Five. VHE SOCIETY AND POLITICS . ..... 121

:

1. Politics. Classes. The State . . St ede. £LOU

2. Present-Day Capitalism: the Saciely and Politics % eats, se Abed
3. The Class Struggle and Revolution . . 2 2. 6 ee 129
4. Socialism and Democracy . . 2. 2. ee ee ee ee + 133

Chapter Six. SOCIAL REVOLUTION . . . . 1... 136
1. Social Revolution: Essence and Prerequisites . . . . . . 136
2. Revolutionary Situation . . on ve ee BO

3. The Character and Motive Fovees af Revoludona . . . . 140

es Seven. THE SOCIETY AND CULTURE

. Culture: The Concept Defined
i Culture and Civilisation
3. Transformation of the Society “and Culture.

Chapter Eight. SOC\AL CONSCIOUSNESS .

1. Social Consciousness: Its Structure and Esscnee ae

2. Independence of Social Consciousness. Its Role in Social
Development ;

3. The Forms of Social Consciousness

Conclusion

Glossary: Key Concepts of Marxist Philosophy and Social Theory

143
143
148
151
155
156
160
163
174

176

To the Reader

This book is an extended introduction to the basic problems
of Marxist social theory, or historical materialism.

Chapter One deals with the general philosophical and socio-
logical principles, categories and concepts of that theory; Chap-
ter Two, with its history, and subsequent chapters, with the
formulation and solution within its framework of the key prob-
lems of social cognition.

Such a presentation, first, makes it easier and more convenient
for the beginner to study Marxist social theory on one’s own
and, second, cnables those who already have some idea of that
theory from various sources to systematise, supplement and deep-
en their knowledge in the right direction.

The glossary of terms and concepts used in Marxist philosoph-
ical and sociological literature has been compiled with a view
to the knowledge each of these categories of readers may want
to obtain.

Special attention is paid in the book to the topical aspects of
the problems considered, their connection with our day, the con-
tinuity of their solution within the framework of Marxist tradi-
tion, and the importance of the main propositions and conclu-
sions of Marxist social theory for practical social transformations
in the present period.

Chapter One
PHILOSOPHY AND SOCIAL COGNITION

1, WORLD OUTLOOK. PHILOSOPHY. SOCIAL THEORY

The social theory of Marxism, or historical materialism, is an
integral element of Marxist philosophy. It emerged and has been
developing together with dialectical materialism as a part of the
scientific materialist world outlook.

World outlook is a system of views on the world as a whole
(nature, the society and thought), which determine and direct
man’s theoretical and practical activity. It is made up of all the
ideas, opinions, ideals and principles which are formed in peo-
ple’s minds in the process of their social, practical activity. The
experience of the particular sciences and various ethical, political,
legal, religious and aesthetic views and principles play a major
role in shaping the world outlook.

Philosophy has a special place in that process. In our day,
it plays the leading role in forming the world outlook, for philo-
sophy itself is a system of the more general ideas about the world
and man’s place in it. Philosophy is both an instrument and a
specific result of man’s theoretical and practical mastery of the
surrounding reality. That is why it is the theoretical basis of the
world outlook.

Each individual’s view of the world, his perception and under-
standing of reality do not exist on their own, but depend on
the experience in mastering the world which the individual ac-
quires, stores and passes on to other people in the process of his
practical activity, his social practice. So, the source of that ex-
perience and knowledge about the world is practice, i.e., human
material activity whose purpose is to change and transform na-
ture and the society. Vhat activity embraces all aspects of joint
human life: the production and distribution of material values,
ideological and political relations, art, morality and science. In

6

their practical activity, people create spiritual culture, as well
as definite material values.

Man's cognitive activity and its results are an organic part of
practice. Without cognition and thinking, human practice would
have been simply impossible. As a result of human cognitive
activity aimed at transforming nature and the society, spiritual
culture in definite forms (including material objects and mon-
uments, such as manuscripts, books, pictures, sculptures, blue-
prints, music scores, films, records, photographs and computer
softwear, which contain definite ideas, social norms, etc.) re-
cords, stores and passes on from epoch to epoch and from gen-
eration to generation the achievements connected with that
activity.

People’s knowledge about the world they live in is an integral
part of these achievements, which are an embodiment of the
society’s cultural level.

Knowledge is the result of man’s cognitive activity, a reflec-
tion of objective reality in his consciousness. In form, direction
and content, practical and theoretical cognitive activity is highly
diverse. The forms of existence of the results of that activity, or
knowledge, are equally diverse.

Knowledge exists in various forms: everyday, or conventional
(“practical”) knowledge, which is oriented towards day-to-day
human behaviour and is connected with the individual’s life ex-
perience; empirical (drawn from observation, description, etc.)
and theoretical (obtained through generalisation, hypothesis and
systematisation of empirical knowledge) scientific knowledge,
which is true and logically noncontradictory and which is the
main guide in the cognitive process, enabling people to foresee
the tendencies of changes in reality, of its purposeful transforma-
tion; and other forms of knowledge, which are relatively inde-
pendent of conventional and scientific knowledge: mythological,
religious, artistic, technical, etc.

Each form of knowledge has its specific reflection in the collec-
tive human consciousness, primarily in collective human psy-
chology, where this knowledge is recorded.

Knowledge is the result of the cognitive process, its socially
meaningful experience, tested by social practice and objective
logic. In man’s cognition, that experience is reflected in the form
of definite notions, concepts, ideas, judgements and theories. As

7

people cognise the world and its realities, they develop convic-
tions. These are firm and assured views and notions, tested by
the experience of many people (often whole generations), deeply
rooted in their consciousness, and guiding them in their practi-
cal activity.

So, in cognising the world, people acquire definite knowledge,
which serves them in their daily life. Human knowledge about
the world is just as diverse as the world itself. There is a complex
interconnection between knowledge, the cognitive process and
actual reality.

Depending on the forms of the existence of knowledge about
the world in the human consciousness, and also on the objective,
socio-historical conditions which determine that knowledge, dif-
ferent types of world perception take shape and different sys-
tems of world outlook develop. All people have a world outlook,
but with some it takes shape spontaneously (everyday world out-
look), with others it assumes the form of faith and worship (re-
ligious world outlook), and still others cultivate it deliberately,
trying to understand social life and their own attitude to the
world by studying past socio-historical experience, various parti-
cular sciences and philosophy.

The main distinction between the conventional, religious and
philosophical systems of world outlook lies in the picture of the
world projected by each of these on the strength of its own
understanding of the world, man and the society. In spite of all
the distinctions between them, they also have something in com-
mon, embracing the more general questions. Among these are
the questions of the correlation between spirit (idea) and matter
(reality), of what is man, what is his place in the world, wheth-
er he can cognise reality and, if he can, how does he do that,
how can man attain happiness, what is the meaning of good and
evil, what is the purpose of life, why does the human society
develop and what are the laws of its development.

The conventional world outlook answers these and other re-
lated questions on the strength of people’s everyday experience,
which is fragmentary and often contradictory and incomplete.

The religious world outlook is based on an illusory, fantastic
reflection of the world in people’s minds, in their notions about
life, their ideals and convictions. It implies a distorted and untrue
picture of the world and of man’s place in it.

8

As compared with these two systems of world outlook, philos-
ophy is a relatively integral system of the more general theoreti-
cal views of the world: nature, the society and man.

As the most general theoretical world outlook, philosophy
formulates and answers each of the more general questions of
cognition in accordance with the answer it gives to the funda-
mental question: the question concerning the relation of con-
sciousness to being, of the spiritual to the material. The answer
given to the fundamental question of philosophy and cognition
as a whole is of exceptional importance both for philosophy itself
and for any of the scientific disciplines for which it provides the
world-outlook (general theoretical) orientation. Depending on how
that question is answered within the framework of this or that
philosophical conception, the resultant world outlook will serve
as either a true or a false guide in human cognition and activ-
ity.

That is why any system of world outlook is primarily deter-
mined by how it formulates and answers the question of the re-
lation of thought to being, of the spiritual to the material, of
the subjective to the objective. The history of world philosophy
is highly instructive: it shows that the way in which outstand-
ing thinkers of the past formulated and answered that question
determined their world-outlook, cognitive and ideological orien-
tations and conclusions.

Depending on the answer to the fundamental question of phi-
losophy (what is primary: nature or spirit, matter or conscious-
ness; which of these has been engendered by the other: conscious-
ness by the objective material world or vice versa; and what
is the relation between knowledge about the world and the world
itself, that is, between consciousness and being), philosophy pro-
jects either a materialist or an idealist world outlook as the two
main philosophical trends. ‘Throughout the history of philosophy,
the materialist world outlook has developed in a struggle against
idealism.

Materialist orientations in philosophy have in one way or an-
other always seen nature and the actually existing material world
with its diverse manifestations as the basic element, and spirit
and consciousness only as its derivatives, while idealist philoso-
phy has assumed the primacy of spirit over matter, regarding
consciousness as the “prime cause” of the world.

Evidently, idealism ts antithetical to materialism in answering
the baste question of philosophy. It absolutises the spirit, its
“independence” of reality itself, separating consciousness from the
objective material world.

The main trends of philosophical idealism (primarily, objec-
tive idealism, whose advocates, like Hegel, are in quest of a uni-
versal spirit, a supra-individual consciousness, and subjective ideal-
ism, whose advocates reduce all knowledge about the world to
the content of individual consciousness) divert cognition in one
degree or another from the scientific truth, although some of them
(like phenomenological orientations, critical rationalism, etc.)
claim to be in quest of it. That quest, however, is carried on from
positions of irrationalism and agnosticism, something that gives
philosophy religious overtones and is thus incompatible with scien-
tific cognition.

Materialism is closely connected with the dialectical conception
of the world. Its history has known the naive (spontaneous) ma-
terialism of antiquity, pre-Marxist and Marxist materialism. The
first was combined with equally naive dialectics, with doctrines
of primitive material elements constituting the universe: water,
air, fire, etc. Pre-Marxist materialism, which emerged with the
formation of capitalist social relations and reached its peak in (
French materialism, was mechanistic (subordinating the world
to the laws of mechanics); it denied any qualitative distinctions
in nature and recognised only quantitative ones.

Marxist materialism as a unity of dialectical and historical ma-

terialism is a truly scientific form of materialism, being the most
integral, consistent and comprehensive of all materialist doctrines.
It was created by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, who formu-
lated the basic propositions of the scientific world outlook. It
presents the world as a reality given to man, objectively reflect-
ed in his consciousness and transformed through purposeful so-
cial practice.

In elaborating the principles of the dialectico-materialist world
outlook, Marx and Engels showed that what divides all philos-
ophers into idealists and materialists is how they answer the fun-
damental question of philosophy, and that the struggle hetween
these two camps in philosophy is a specific reflection of the
contest between the basic vital interests of progressive (material-
ism) and reactionary (idealism) social forces,

10

ee

As they elaborated the basic philosophical principles of the
new world outlook, Marx and Engels made a critical review of
all the achievements of earlier materialism and dialectics, the con-
clusions of natural science and social thought. That enabled
them to sum up the results of scientific cognition as a whole,
to see it as part of the experience gained by mankind in its his-
torical practice, substantiating the latter’s decisive role in the de-
velopment of human cognition and showing its unity with the
progressive, revolutionary theory that contained a new under-
standing of social history and its progressive development.

So, as Marx and Engels elaborated their dialectico-material-
ist world outlook, they also revolutionised mankind’s view of the
society. By substantiating the materialist understanding of history,
the sources and motive forces of social development, Marx and
Engels laid the foundations of a truly scientific social theory. The
social theory of Marxism-—historical materialism—made it pos-
sible to deepen and specify the main laws and propositions of
materialist dialectics, and to give a consistently scientific, material-
ist explanation of the basic prerequisites of history and the laws
and conditions of social development.

Later on, we shall return to the significance of the revolution
in social cognition effected by Marx and Engels as they created
historical materialism. Let us merely note here that its emergence
was closely tied in with their development of the basic prin-
ciples of the scientific materialist world outlook, a world outlook
which enabled its founders not only to see mankind’s past in a
new light, but also to make scientific forecasts for the society
of the future, to project the main lines of its development, lay
the foundations and formulate the pivotal propositions of the
theory of scientific socialism and communism.

The basic principles of the world outlook founded by Marx
and Engels and their theoretical legacy as a whole were subse-
quently elaborated by Vladimir Lenin, another great revolution-
ary thinker. Enriched by Lenin’s scientifically substantiated con-
clusions on the development laws of progressive scientific theory
and by the practice of the society’s revolutionary transformation
in our epoch, this world outlook—--Marxism-Leninism, which ex-
presses the interests of the proletariat, the most progressive class
of the present-day society-—is a time-tested and reliable compass
in its struggle against economic, social and all other forms

1

of exploitation and oppression, for mankind’s better future.

As a part of that advanced world outlook, Marxist social theo-
ry answers the key questions raised by the practice of struggle
for a revolutionary renewal of the society.

World outlook, philosophy, social cognition and social prac-
tice are closely interconnected. Summing up that interconnection
one could say that:

—-as the most general system of views on the world (nature,
the society, man, the laws of thought and cognition), philosophy
is a definite theoretical, i.e., theoretically substantiated, world out-
look;

- the philosophy of Marx, Engels and Lenin is the scientific
system of such a world outlook;

—alongside dialectical materialism, which explains the more
general development laws of nature, the society and thought,
this philosophy also includes within its system of views a sci-
entific materialist understanding of history, the basic laws and
motive forces of social development;

-—that scientific materialist understanding of social history lies
at the root of historical materialism;

~—dialectical and historical materialism are in organic unity,
because they are both parts of the integral scientific materialist
world outlook and are a theoretical generalising result of man-
kind’s cognition of the world and its main laws;

~——as the social theory of Marxism, historical materialism is a
reliable world-outlook guide in the practical revolutionary trans-
formation of the human society.

2

2. HISTORICAL MATERIALISM:
ITS SUBJECT-MATTER DEFINED

Every science has its own subject-matter. The subject-matter of
a science is the area, the sphere of reality studied by that science
from its own, peculiar angle. In examining its subject-matter,
any science seeks to discern and explain the uniformities, proces-
ses and phenomena of reality, bringing them out step by step.

Science gives a theoretical systematisation of the objective
knowledge about reality with a view to obtaining new knowledge,
which has a definite practical (as well as theoretical) impor-
tance, for science is closely connected with man’s practical mas-
tery of the world.

12

One of the conditions for identifying different subject-matter
spheres and demarcating these in the particular sciences is the
specialisation of scientists’ research interests. Stemming from the
objective needs of human practice, such specialisation of research
manifests itself in demarcating the spheres of scientific interests
both between different sciences (natural, which study various
aspects of the natural world, like biology, physics, or chemistry,
and social, each of which examines this or that sphere of social
life from its own angle) and within the framework of one scien-
tific discipline.

Take history. As a science of mankind’s past, history is subdi-
vided into ancient, medieval, modern and recent. The complex
of its branches includes economic history, military history, histo-
riography (the history of history), etc. Then there is also the
history of individual countries and peoples, of various aspects of
culture, science, technology and art. So, the subject-matter orien-
tations of the various branches of history as a science are highly
diverse. At the same time, that does not rule out the integrity
of that science, which studies the integral, though diverse, expe-
rience of mankind’s development in its concrete manifestations.

Since social life is so complicated and diverse, the subject-mat-
ter orientations of the various social sciences that study it do
not coincide. Each of these investigates its own area of real life
known as the society: demography deals with the laws of popu-
lation; sociology, with social relations and the laws of the society’s
functioning and development; economics, with the laws of its
economic life and human economic activity; jurisprudence, with
juridical institutions and with legal views and relations sanc-
tioned by the state as laws, norms of social life, etc.

But alongside the specific uniformities of social development,
studied by the particular social sciences, there is also a set of
the more general laws, and these constitute the subject-matter of
historical materialism, which is the most general theoretico-cog-
nitive compass in social cognition as a whole, a scientific me-
thodology for the study of the society and its history by various
scientific disciplines.

Relying on dialectical materialism, or the science of the more
general laws of the development of objective reality and cogni-
tion, historical materialism studies the society, seeking to explain
the laws of its functioning and development.

13

The subject-matter of historical materialism is a study of the
general laws and motive forces in the development of the hu-
man society.

What is the society? How and why does it develop? What is
the cause of its progress from one epoch to another? Wherein
lie the roots of the radical changes taking place in the society,
and what is their specifics?

Marxist social theory, or historical materialism, formulates
and gives a scientifically substantiated answer to each of these
and other related questions. Pre-Marxist social thought also
tried to answer some of these questions, but without much suc-
cess: since it was idealist, it could not explain from a scientific
stand the objectively existing conditions and prerequisites of
human life in the society, the laws of its history.

That was done by Marx and Engels, who exposed the spe-
culative, conjectural nature of the idealist view of history. They
showed that the dialectico-materialist answer to the fundamen-
tal question of philosophy in application to social development—
that of the relation of social being to social consciousness—is
the only scientific answer to that question in social cognition.
The cornerstone of historical materialism was laid by an idea
formulated by Marx in his preface to A Contribution to the
Critique of Political Economy: “The mode of production of ma-
terial life conditions the general process of social, political and
intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that deter-
mines their existence, but their social existence that determines
their consciousness,”

A consistently materialist answer to the fundamental question
of philosophy in application to social cognition enabled Marx
to see the objective basis of history and the society as a reflection
of the realities of social life in human consciousness,

Marxist social theory or historical materialism, regards the
society as an objectively existing reality, as the sum-total of the
relations and conditions of joint human life, a peculiar social
organism that lives and develops according to its own, intrinsic
laws, which cannot be reduced to the laws of nature or, more-
over, derived from the spiritual “state of the epoch”, from the
collective consciousness.

* Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy,
Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1977, pp. 20-21.

14

The view of the society offered by Marxist social theory re-
futes any naturalistic (likening the society to the natural world)
or subjectivist (reducing social relations to an interplay of in-
dividual consciousnesses) explanations of social reality, which
are on the whole accepted by present-day non-Marxist trends
in philosophy and sociology. In a bid to play down the impor-
tance of historical materialism for social cognition and to dis-
tort the main propositions and conclusions of Marxist social
theory, its present-day critics prefer to describe its approach to
social research as merely an attempt by its founders to combine
in an “arbitrary” way some propositions of earlier materialism
with Hegel’s dialectics and with conclusions drawn from the
doctrines of the utopian socialists, a synthesis which has alleged-
ly not yielded any complete philosophical system.

In answering such critics of Marxist social theory and show-
ing the close interconnection of its main propositions and con-
clusions with the integral dialectico-materialist world outlook,
Lenin wrote: “Marx deepened and developed philosophical ma-
terialism to the full, and extended the cognition of nature to
include the cognition of human society.” Marx’s historical ma-
terialism was a great scientific breakthrough. “The chaos and
arbitrariness that had previously reigned in views on history and
politics,” Lenin emphasised, “were replaced by a strikingly inte-
gral and harmonious scientific theory,”*

So, let us draw some conclusions:

—historical materialism is an independent philosophical dis-
cipline, with its own special subject-matter;

—the subject-matter of historical materialism is the laws
and motive forces of the development of the human society;

—historical materialism gives a consistently scientific ex-
planation of the main laws and motive forces of social develop-
ment.

To understand historical materialism, one should examine its

key problems, categories and concepts, and that is what we shall
proceed to do.

*V. I. Lenin, “The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of
Marxism”, Collected Works, Vol. 19, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1977,
p. 25,

* bid,

15

3. THE BASIC PROBLEMS OF SOCIAL THEORY

As an independent theory, historical materialism took shape and
was developed as a result of an in-depth comprehension of the
major problems of social cognition by Marx and Engels, and
then by Lenin.

In speaking of the fundamental distinction between Marxist
social theory and all preceding theories of social development,
Lenin pointed out two basic shortcomings of the latter: first,
their limited idealistic conceptions of the society, the inability of
bourgeois theorists to see the objective basis of social relations,
rooted in the system of material production and its development
laws; and second, the inability of these theorists to see that the
real prerequisites for social change lie in the action of the
masses. Historical materialism, Lenin said, eliminated these short-
comings and, “by examining the totality of opposing tendencies,
by reducing them to precisely definable conditions of life and
production of the various classes of society, by discarding subjec-
tivism and arbitrariness in the choice of a particular ‘dominant’
idea or in its interpretation, and by revealing that, without ex-
ception, all ideas and all the various tendencies stem from the
condition of the material forces of production, Marxism indicat-
ed the way to an all-embracing and comprehensive study of the
process of the rise, development, and decline of socio-economic
systems. People make their own history, but what determines the
motives of people, of the mass of people, i.e., what gives rise to
the clash of conflicting ideas and strivings? What is the sum
total of all these clashes in the mass of human societies? What
are the objective conditions of production of material life that
form the basis of all of man’s historical activity? What is the
law of development of these conditions? To all these Marx drew
attention and indicated the way to a scientific study of history
as a single process which, with all its immense variety and con-
tradictoriness, is governed by definite laws.”

Lenin’s characterisation of historical materialism also helps to
see the range of its basic problems. Among the most important
of these are the problems of studying the society as: (1) a result
of human activity; (2) a totality of the relations into which
people enter in the process of producing the material values they

*V. 0. Lenin, “Karl Marx”, Collected Works, Vol. 21, 1977, p. 57.

16

a

need for their existence and in the subsequent distribution of
these products of their joint labour; (3) an integral social or-
ganism, with its own laws of functioning and development.

‘The key problems of Marxist social theory also include the
problems of the society's social structure (as a totality of the
relations that take shape in the sphere of the economic basis and
the ideological, political and other superstructural relations “‘ris-
ing above” that basis and determined by economic relations) ;
the motive forces of social development (primarily the problems
of classes and class struggle); social revolution, its objective and
subjective factors; explanation of history, its laws and motive
forces, the content and essence of socio-historical progress; and
the methodology of the cognition of social phenomena.

Marxist social theory also takes a great interest in problems
relating to the interaction between the society and nature (in-
cluding such urgent problems facing mankind in our day as
conservation of the natural environment, the ecological crisis, po-
pulation, etc.); the society’s social organisation; its political life;
the specific social content of the crucial components, forms and
mechanisms of the social consciousness; the subject of the histor-
ical process (the place and role of the popular masses and in-
dividuals in the society's history, in the process of its transforma-
tion), etc.

‘There is a close dialectical interconnection between the basic
problems of historical materialism.

4, DIALECTICS AND SOCIAL COGNITION

Relying on the laws of materialist dialectics, historical material-
ism studies the specific laws of social life—social laws—and
gives their scientific explanation.

Every law expresses an objective, necessary and stable con-
nection between processes and phenomena. Vialectical material-
ism makes it possible to see that connection in the more gener-
al laws governing the development of nature, the society and
thought. Its laws not only bring out the universal, essential rela-
tions between natural and social phenomena, but also show their
qualitative peculiarity. ‘That connection and peculiarity are also
reflected in social laws studied by historical materialism, the laws
of social life and social development.

17

The specifics of social laws, just as the laws of the natural
world, can be understood with the help of the laws of material-
ist dialectics. Its main laws, which provide reliable guidance in
scientific cognition, social cognition in particular, include:

(1) the law of the unity and struggle of opposites, which pin-
points the source of independent development in the world sur-
rounding man, shows the system of contradictions interconnecting
various aspects of the ceaseless process of transition from some
forms of being to others, with a resolution of these contradictions
in the course of progressive development; expressing the essence,
the very core of dialectics, this law also helps to explain the spe-
cific content of social contradictions, to bring out the interaction
of various aspects of people’s material production and spiritual
activity, and to see the real prerequisites for social development,
for the historical process;

(2) the law of the transformation of quantity into quality
(and vice versa), which characterises development as a funda-
mental, internal, structural change of the phenomena being stud-
ied, the emergence of a new quality (or set of qualities) on
the basis of definite quantitative changes in the course of devel-
opment; it also shows the qualitative content of quantitative
changes in the society connected with demographic processes,
with changes in the numerical correlation and composition of
definite social classes and strata in the social structure, with
the development of material production, the spread of culture,
and revolutionary transformations in any sphere of social life;

(3) the law of the negation of the negation, which sees de-
velopment as a strictly progressive process, that is, it determines
how and in what form are the connection and historical conti-
nuity effected in development, and how a positive quality attain-
ed at a definite stage asserts itself, negating the preceding initial
state, something that becomes an element of ascent from the low-
er to the higher in the course of development, an element of
the resolution of the internal contradictions of that process, which
does not rule out but, on the contrary, presupposes their internal
unity, their struggle as a struggle between the opposite sides of
that unity; this law also helps to see and explain the continuity
in the development of culture and the society, to present it as
a movement effected through the negation (replacement) of
some forms of human practice (activity and thought) by other

18

and higher forms, like the succession of forms of property, types
of culture and whole civilisations in history; the evolution of
ethical, political, religious and other views, or the development
of science through a succession of theories, views and hypotheses.

Many critics of Marxism claim that historical materialism
“naturalises” social cognition, “reducing” the content of its ob-
jective uniformities to the objective uniformities of nature and
so “ignoring” the qualitative specifics of the society and its de-
velopment laws.

Such views are primarily developed and expounded by repre-
sentatives of anthropologically oriented trends, which have tra-
ditionally criticised Marxism from the positions of Freudianism,
existentialism and “philosophical sociology” (Alfred Weber,
Georg Simmel, José Ortega y Gasset). The present-day followers
of these traditions continue to advocate views based on a misun-
derstanding of the scientific materialist explanation of natural
and social laws, and sometimes on a poor knowledge of the prob-
lems of social cognition as formulated by the founders of histori-
cal materialism.

In showing the specifics of social uniformities, historical ma-
terialism does not reduce their explanation to abstract theoreti-
cal statements emphasising the “analogies” (as naturalistic inter-
pretations do) or the “dissimilarities” and qualitative distinctions
(as subjectivist interpretations do) between the laws of nature
and the society. Regarding social development as a natural his-
torical process, Marxist social theory shows the fundamental dis-
tinction of the laws of social life studied within its framework
as the laws of conscious and purposeful human activity-—from
the laws of motion and development in the natural world. That
distinction, Marx emphasised, is primarily due to the fact that
men make their own history, although “they do not make it just
as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen
by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered,

given and transmitted from the past”.* Consciously changing

these circumstances, people act in accordance with the objective
conditions and laws of the society they live in.
The connection between materialist dialectics and historical

: ‘ Karl Marx, “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte”, in:
Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 11, Progress Pub-
lishers, Moscow. 1979, p. 103.

* 19

materialism primarily manifests itself in that the latter could be
seen as the dialectico-materialist method operating in the sphere
of social cognition. The importance of that method as an instru-
ment of social cognition is due not only to its theoretico-cogni-
tive potentialities, but also to the practical social content of the
conclusions and principles of materialist dialectics, their creative
use in tackling the problems of social reconstruction, of radical
social transformations.

Among the major principles of materialist dialectics (princi-
ple here means a definite demand by which one should be guided
in the process of cognition), which were elaborated, in particu-
lar, by V. 1. Lenin in application to the problems of historical
materialism, are:

(1) the principle of studying social phenomena in their inter-
connection and interdependence; Lenin attached particular im-
portance to that principle, emphasising in The Collapse of the

Second International that “Marxist dialectics ... excludes any
isolated examination of an object, i.e., one that is one-sided and
monstrously distorted... There are no ‘pure’ phenomena, nor

can there be, either in Nature or in society,... the very concept
of purity indicates a certain narrowness, a one-sidedness of hu-
man cognition, which cannot embrace an object in all its totality
and complexity” ;*

(2) the principle of studying phenomena in ceaseless motion
and development (the principle of historicism, which asserts the
unity of the historical and the logical in the object being stu-
died); in a lecture on the state, Lenin showed that a scientific
examination of social phenomena is based on a consistent imple-
mentation of that principle, which enables the researcher ‘“‘to
examine every question from the standpoint of how the given
phenomenon arose in history and what were the principal stages
in its development, and, from the standpoint of its development,
to examine what it has become today”?

(3) the principle of the concrete historical approach in ex-
amining social phenomena (closely tied in with the principle of
historicism, this principle presupposes an examination of any so-
ciety, process or phenomenon with a view to the whole totality

‘V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, pp. 235, 236.
* Vv. I. Lenin, “The State’, Collected Works, Vol. 29, 1977, p. 473.

20

of its characteristics); in his What the “Friends of the People”
Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats, Lenin exposed
as scientifically invalid the a priori, dogmatic and abstract con-
structs of bourgeois sociology in dealing with the problems of the
society and the individual in the context of metaphysical rhe-
toric about the “society”, “progress” and the “historical pro-
cess”.

Lenin showed that such an abstract, non-historical approach
to the question about the essence of “society in general” is un-
dialectical, “for, to begin by asking what is society and what is
progress, is to begin at the end... This is a most obvious symp-
tom of metaphysics’.

Another question that could arise here is whether all of the
above means that historical materialism does not recognise any
theoretical abstractions at all, just as the very possibility of general
typologies of social phenomena. Not in the least. Historical ma-
terialism does not reject social typologies based on a study of the
general development uniformities of complex social phenomena
and processes. Historical materialism studies these on the strength
of an analysis of the dialectics of the singular, the particular and
the general. Thus, regarding social revolution as a phenomenon
in its own right, the society as an integral whole, man as a social
being, etc., historical materialism brings out and explains from
a dialectical standpoint all the manifestations of the studied ob-
ject through the singular, the particular and the general.

These categories of materialist dialectics are a major guide
in social cognition.

Of great importance for historical materialism are also such
key categories of materialist dialectics as relation, contradiction,
rest and motion, quantity and quality, cause and effect, necessity
and chance, form and content, possibility and reality, essence
and appearance. Having been applied to social analysis, these
have given rise to special categories of social dialectics: social
contradiction, social content, social quality, etc.

The categories of materialist dialectics are a reliable theore-
tico-cognitive compass in studying the realities of social life and
the laws of its development. Many of these crucial categories

* WV. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 1, 1972, p. 143.
* Tbid., pp. 143-44,

2t

have acquired a qualitatively new. sociological content in histo-
rica] materialism, becoming an integral part of the system of
concepts and categories of Marxist social theory.

5. BASIC CATEGORIES AND CONCEPTS

As we have already said. historical materialism uses in its con-
ceptual system a number of special concepts (terms) and cate-
gories of dialectical materialism. That is only natural, for there
are no impassable boundaries between dialectical and historical
materialism. Filling out dialectico-materialist categories with its
own content. historical materialism makes wide use of them for
an analysis of social phenomena, incorporating them into its
own system of categories.

Any system is characterised by: (1) unity, (2) integrity, (3)
interconnection and orderly arrangement (a definite multi-level
hierarchy) of its components (parts). The system of categories
of historical materialism and its terminology are no exception in
this respect. In their totality, the categories and key concepts of
historical materialism reflect the objectively existing relations and
connections between the social phenomena being studied. ‘Their
theoretical reHection by historical materialism adequately repro-
duces the actual system of interconnections between them. In
analysing these phenomena, historical materialism seeks to give
a correct explanation of the internal uniformities in the function-
ing and development of that system of interrelations. It studies
the society as a system, as an integral entity, as a unity of its
various aspects, without exaggerating the importance of some of
these aspects at the expense of others.

Marxist social theory regards the unity of the society's consti-
tuent aspects and relations through a harmonious system of in-
terconnected categories and concepts, applied to the most diver-
se spheres of social life. As a coherent social theory, historical
materialism comprises a number of doctrines elaborated by its
founders from every angle and explaining the uniformities of
this or that sphere of social life. Among these doctrines one
should primarily list the following: the doctrine of the mode of
production; of socio-economic formations; of the state; of classes,
class struggle and social revolution (including socialist’ revolu-
tion); of the socio-historical process, etc. Each of these doc-

22

trines has its own system of concepts, which is a part of the
general, constantly developing system of categories and concepts
of historical materialism.

In the most general form, that system can be presented as
a totality of three interconnected terminological spheres.

The first includes “traditional” general philosophical terminol-
ogy re-examined by the founders of Marxist social theory in
accordance with the tasks of studying the society and_ history
and giving their scientific explanation. It includes such tradi-
tional philosophical categories and concepts as activity, con-
sciousness, being, subject, practice and others. When used in
Marxist philosophy, each of these can differ markedly (both in
the range of content and in meaning) from the seemingly iden-
tical terms relating either to earlier or to modern non-Marxist
trends. One should never forget that in studying historical ma-
terialism and its terminology.

‘The second sphere contains the general sociological terminol-
ogy specially elaborated by the founders of historical materialism
and primarily connected with a study of material production and
other spheres of social life as a whole (the productive forces and
the relations of production, the mode of production, etc.). That
terminology constitutes the core of the conceptual apparatus of
historical materialism, and we shall examine it in detail.

‘he third sphere includes many concepts elaborated by pre-
Marxist sociological thought (society, nation, state, class, ideolo-
gy, etc.), but fully reconsidered by Marx, Engels and their fol-
lowers in their scientific analysis of the key problems of the so-
ciety, history and social cognition itself along new lines.

It is not surprising that the ideological adversaries of Marxism
have been carrying on intensive and ceaseless polemics precisely
round the latter terminology of historical materialism, which re-
lates to ideology, politics, social psychology, spiritual culture, the
problems of man, etc. They dispute the novelty of the content
of its key concepts and categories and present them in a distort-
ed light. Falsifications of historical materialism are often based
precisely on such misinterpretations of the sociological content
of some of its concepts and conceptions, which enhances the im-
portance of their careful study on the strength of original Marx-
ist-Leninist works.

The categories of “social being” and “social consciousness”

23

are the starting points of historical materialism, which studies the
society in the light of the scientific answer to the basic question
of philosophy and regards it as an integral system. These two
categories enable one to get down to an analysis of various as-
pects of social life in their interconnection.

By social being historical materialism primarily means the pro-
duction of material values and the relations into which people
enter in the process of that production. Social being is people’s
economic, material life.

By social consciousness historical materialism means the socie-
ty’s spiritual life as a unity of its constituent ideological elements
(political, legal, moral, aesthetical, and religious notions). His-
torical materialism devotes particular attention to the study of
diverse forms of social consciousness, their functioning and in-
terconnection, but without detaching these from its study of the
processes of social being, which are specifically reflected in each
of these forms of human consciousness (law, morality, religion,
etc.).

In accordance with the scientific, dialectico-materialist world
outlook, with the scientific answer to the basic question of phi-
losophy, historical materialism assumes the primacy of social be-
ing with regard to social consciousness, recognising that people’s
social being determines their social consciousness (their ideas,
goals and aspirations), rather than vice versa.

The initial, basic sociological categories of historical material-
ism, as it was noted above, include the mode of production, the
productive forces and the relations of production; the basis and
the superstructure; and the socio-economic formation.

Bringing out the essence of the materialist understanding of
history in his foreword to A Contribution to the Critique of Po-
litical Economy, Marx showed the interconnection between
these key categories. He wrote: “In the social production of
their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which
are independent of their will, namely relations of production ap-
propriate to a given stage in the development of their material
forces of production. The totality of these relations of produc-
tion constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foun-
dation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and
to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The
mode of production of material life conditions the general process

24

eR ET ET

of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness
of men that determines their existence, but their social existence
that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of de-
velopment, the material productive forces of society come into
conflict with the existing relations of production or—this merely
expresses the same thing in legal terms—-with the property rela-
tions within the framework of which they have operated hither-
to. From forms of development of the productive forces these
relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social
revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner
or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstruc-
ture... No social order is ever destroyed before all the produc-
tive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new
superior relations of production never replace older ones before
the material conditions for their existence have matured within
the framework of the old society.”*

The category of “socio-economic formation” is pivotal to the
system of categories of historical materialism, making it possible
to view the society as a single whole, from the positions of strict
historicism. The substantiation by the founders of Marxist social
theory of the category of socio-economic formation enabled them
to replace the abstract discourse upon “society in general”, which
was typical of all pre-Marxist politico-economic, philosophical
and social thought with a concrete analysis of different types of
the society, whose development is governed by specific laws which
are intrinsic to each of these. In that way, they laid the founda-
tion of the scientific materialist view of social life as a unity of
its diverse aspects, the socio-historical process as a whole.

In the course of polemics with bourgeois philosophy and so-
ciology, historical materialism re-examined the content of many
of their concepts in a fundamental way. But Marxist terminolo-
gy patterned as “social” + “analysis” (crisis, conflict, etc.) should
not be identified, as some modern critics of Marxism do, with
the meaningless labels on everyday notions, with the game of
“sociological” definitions, which is a favourite pastime of many
bourgeois social scientists in our day. In their quest for “new”
terms, they make diverse borrowings from the natural sciences

* Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Polttical Economy,
pp. 20-21,

25

and the everyday vocabulary. They “‘sociologise’” these terms by
adding the word “social”, but are usually unable with the help
of their newly coined terms adequately to bring out the essence
of the phenomena in question. Such terms are sterile, scholastic
and useless. Historical materialism. on the other hand, elaborates
new concepts or borrows these from other areas in accordance
with the actual requirements of the scientific analysis of the so-
cial phenomena.

In subsequent sections, we shall keep returning to the specific
content of the key concepts and categories of historical material-
ism.

6. HISTORICAL MATERIALISM
AND THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

As a philosophical theory of the most general laws and motive
forces of mankind's social development, historical materialism
provides general guidelines for social cognition, serving as its
scientific methodology.

Methodology comes from the Greek words “study of method”,
where method (from the Greek word meaning way, mode of cog-
nition) is a body of theoretical and practical rules and_tech-
niques helping man to master reality. Scientific methodology is a
system of definite theoretical principles, postulates and ensuing
conclusions used by way of guidance in the study of reality, in
this or that particular field of reality, or in a definite scientific
discipline.

The principles being consistently applied by historical ma-
terialism in studying and explaining social realities are highly im-
portant for any social discipline in our day, since the society
makes increasing demands on the social sciences that study it.
Its overall picture has become much more complicated in view
of the unprecedented state of social development and various
demographic. social. political and other changes. These changes
put many complicated problems before researchers. How is one
to explain these changes, bring out their essence, discern and
forecast the tendencies of future development as accurately as
possible?

For a successful solution of the problems of social cognition,
confronted in one way or another by any of the social sciences,
one should start from the initial propositions of historical mate-

26

rialism, from its basic principles, such as the principle of ma-
terialism, the principle of historicism. etc. longside materialist
dialectics, or the universal philosophical method of cognition,
historical materialism serves as a scientific methodology, provid-
ing reliable theoretico-cognitive guidelines for the most diverse
social sciences. It promotes the successful development both of
traditional and many new lines of research, studying diverse as-
pects of the society's material production and spiritual life and
striving not only to understand its past and present, but also to
foresee its future.

History, political economy. sociology. ethics, jurisprudence,
psychology, literary criticism, linguistics—these and other social
disciplines turn to historical materialism as to the theoretical,
world-outlook foundation of scientific social cognition.

At the same time, Marxist social theory. or historical material-
ism. does not merely serve as a methodology of social cognition.
Synthesising the results and conclusions of many social sciences
and examining these from a philosophical and sociological angle,
historical materialism is also a_ theoretical generalisation of
socio-historical practice as a whole.

Since social cognition serves the definite practical interests of
individuals, social groups and classes, the connection between
social theory and definite social interests presupposes its parlisan
nature. When social disciplines are oriented towards the interests
of social groups which seek to obstruct progress and perpetuate
their positions to the detriment of the objective needs of the so-
ciety as a whole, they are invariably drawn into defending these
reactionary interests. Social theory. just as the social sciences in
general, cannot therefore lay claim to objectively “neutral”
knowledge, unrelated to any social values.

Social theory depends not only on human activity, but also on
the conditions in which that activity takes place. At the same time,
social theory is always connected with a definite philosophical line,
with a struggle among parties and philosophies. Any stand, either
“committed” or allegedly impartial. “value-neutral”, is an ex-
pression of the partisan nature of social science. Historical ma-
terialism recognises the partisan principle as a basic principle of
scientific cognition and, on the strength of its conclusions, of the
transformation of social reality.

Scientific materialist theory correlates its conclusions with the

27

practical tasks of restructuring the so¢giety and promoting man-
kind’s advance along the road of liberation from any forms of
exploitation, poverty and injustice, towards a society where the
free development of each individual becomes a condition for the
free development of all.

In view of the place that belongs to historical materialism in
the system of scientific philosophical knowledge and the spe-
cifics of its subject-matter as a social theory, historical material-
ism can be seen, first, as a definite social philosophy, a field of
the philosophical analysis of social life; second, as a philosophy
of history, which explains the main uniformities of the histori-
cal process; and third, as an independent general sociological
theory, a theory of the society as an integral system in the unity
of its constituent social institutions, processes and structures, their
functioning and development.

Social philosophy, the philosophy of history, and sociology are
mutually complementary aspects of historical materialism.

* %* «*

In summing up our review of the problems, principles, cate-
gories and concepts of historical materialism and its relations
with other social sciences, let us note that:

—historical materialism formulates and resolves the key prob-
lems of social cognition connected with its range of subject-mat-
ter orientations;

historical materialism has an independent and harmonious
system of categories and concepts;

--there is a close interconnection between the categories and
laws of materialist dialectics and the categories and concepts of
historical materialism;

‘historical materialism develops and deepens the categories
of dialectics, applying these to an analysis of the problems of
social cognition;

—-historica] materialism is deeply partisan, for it takes a reso-
lute stand in defence of the goals and interests of the working
class, the most progressive class of the society;

historical materialism is a reliable theoretical foundation
and methodology for the other social sciences.

Chapter Two

THE ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT
OF MARXIST SOCIAL THEORY

“The whole spirit of Marxism, its whole system”, Lenin wrote,
“demands that each proposition should be considered (a ) only
historically, ( 6) only in connection with others, (y ) only in
connection with the concrete experience of history.”* So, in
order to understand the specifics of historical materialism as an
integral and independent scientific theory, let us examine the
main stages of its development.

Its rise and development were not isolated from the main-
stream of social thought, although they followed a specific, un-
trodden path.

1. THEORETICAL SOURCES

Historical materialism emerged and developed as an integral
part of Marx’s philosophical system of views and doctrine.
“Marx”, Lenin noted, “was the genius who continued and con-
summated the three main ideological currents of the nineteenth
century, as represented by the three most advanced countries of
mankind: classical German philosophy, classical English politi-
cal economy, and French socialism combined with French revo-
lutionary doctrines in general.”? What were these main ideolo-
gical currents of the 19th century?

A connection with these crucial ideological and theoretical
sources, on the one hand, and a striving to re-examine these
sources in order to map out practical ways for a solution of the
urgent tasks put forward by life itself (development of science,

*V.I1. Lenin, “To Inessa Armand”, Collected Works, Vol. 35, 1980,
p. 250.

* Vv. 1. Lenin, “Karl Marx”, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 50.

29

the requirements of the working people’s revolutionary move-
ment and its organisation), on the other, was what determined
the development of the Marxist doctrine as an integral system
of philosophical, economic and socio-political views.

Classical German philosophy. Marxist social theory stemmed
from a critical re-examination by its founders of the views on
man, the society and history that took shape in the classical
German philosophy of the late 18th and the first half of the
19th century.

Marx and Engels started with the Young Hegelians. an inde-
pendent trend which emerged from classical German philosophy.
There was no unity among the Young Hegelians. It was only
the most advanced section of the German intelligentsia (like
Ludwig Feuerbach) which in its criticism of religion bordered
on materialist views and openly clashed with Hegel's system.

The weakness of the German bourgeoisie and the socio-polit-
ical conditions of the mid-19th-century Germany, which remained
a fragmented, semi-feudal country, with numerous patriarchal
structures, were given a peculiar ideological interpretation in
classical German philosophy.

While being a summary of the historical experience of bour-
geois revolutions, primarily the 18th-century revolution in Britain
and the Great French Revolution of the late 18th century, a
theoretical generalisation of that experience and its ideological
expression, focusing the views of the advanced circles of the
bourgeoisie in that period (a period of the breakdown of old
feudal structures in the conditions of backward Germany), that
philosophy was gradually losing its progressive orientation and
increasingly giving way to compromise tendencies. Confining its
studies to the spheres of abstract emotion and theorising spirit,
and abstracting itself from a concrete social analysis of the mo-
tive forces of history and social development as a whole, German
philosophy was in effect getting out of touch with the urgent
problems of the day. On the whole, ciassical German philosophy
was unable to draw close to an adequate reflection of man, the
society and history.

At the same time, it made a considerable stride forward in
the field of dialectics. A special contribution to dialectics was

30

made by Hegel, who saw it as the universal method of cogni-
tion, including historical cognition. At that time, Hegel's dia-
lectics was “the most comprehensive and profound doctrine of
development, and the richest in content™.! [It is not surprising,
therefore, that Marx and Engels regarded that doctrine, which
made it possible to trace the process of the quest for truth by
philosophy itself, as the greatest achievement of classical Ger-
man philosophy.

Upon Hegel's death, his dialectical system continued to spark
disputes among his German disciples. The conservative wing of
the Hegelians continued to cling to his system, interpreting it in
aspirit of Protestant orthodoxy, while the radical, left-wing,
Young Hegelians (Arnold Ruge, Bruno Bauer, and others) drew
atheistic conclusions from Hegel's doctrine, denouncing the feudal
monarchy in Germany and its trampling of civil liberties. The left
Hegelians openly eulogised the traditions of the French bourgeois
revolution and the republican form of government.

Ludwig Feuerbach heralded the materialist trend in the Ger-
man philosophy of the late 1830s and early 1840s. His ideas had
a particularly strong influence on the radical circles of the Ger-
man intelligentsia. He criticised Hegel’s philosophy of history
and his idealistic system as a whole. But while criticising He-
gel’s idealism, Feuerbach also rejected his dialectics, instead of
making a critical reassessment of it.

Feuerbach’s materialist views were obviously marked by an-
thropologism. Resolutely denouncing vulgar and mechanistic ma-
terialism, he confined himself to abstract, non-historical and often
purely biological interpretations of “human nature”, failing to
understand the social essence of man. The limitations of Feuer-
hach’s anthropological materialism (just as those of all earlier
materialism) were most evident in the question about the link
between man and the society. In his view of history, Feuerbach
remained an idealist, failing to arrive at a dialectico-materialist
understanding of social life.

Vhat was done by Marx and Engels, who re-examined the
achievements of Hegel’s dialectics in a critical spirit, combining
its achievements with consistent materialism and spreading the
latter to the understanding of history and the society.

'V. I. Lenin, “Karl Marx”, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 53.

31

English bourgeois political economy. Having taken shape in
Britain, the most advanced industrial country of the late 18th
and early 19th centuries, bourgeois political economy sought to
bring out the internal structure of capitalist production. The lead-
ing representatives of classical English political economy —Adam
Smith and David Ricardo—analysed the economic system of
British capitalism and founded the labour theory of value. That
was their great historical achievement. But as they laid bare
and analysed the laws of capitalist social production, bourgeois
political economists did not realise the historically changing,
transient nature of these laws. They portrayed these laws as
“eternal” and “natural”, avoiding an examination of the social
antagonisms connected with these economic laws.

As the positions of the bourgeoisie strengthened, as the work-
ing class appeared on the historical scene as an independent po-
litical and social force defending its own rights, and as the class
struggle in the society intensified, the scientific disinterestedness
of bourgeois political economy even at that time began to give
way to an apologetics of the economic and social realities of cap-
italism. On the principles of rationalist philosophy, classical
bourgeois political economy sought to derive the economic laws
of capitalism from the nature of the “economic man” (homo
economicus) himself, an individual entering into economic rela-
tions with other individuals.

Bourgeois economists “overlooked” (as Marx first showed in
his works) the social nature of production and of the production
relations which take shape in the production process. In place
of what bourgeois economists saw solely as relations between things
(an exchange of one commodity for another), Marx discovered
the actual relations between people as relations between com-
modity producers. In examining these social relations, he even-
tually established that the commodity itself is an embodiment of
definite production relations, and that commodity fetishism char-
acterises the capitalist mode of production as a whole. Marx
defined commodity fetishism as attributing to a commodity de-
finite properties (connected with the self-expansion of its value)
which reflect these relations."

* See Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1974.
p. 77; idem., Capital, Vol. II, 1974, p. 881.

32

Marx pinpointed the true sources of the capitalist’s profit, and
explained the mechanisms of capital accumulation as the result
of a definite economic and social system of production, under
which human labour-power becomes a commodity as the wage-
worker sells it to the owner of the means of production and

creates surplus-value, the source of the wealth of the capitalist
class.

French utopian socialism. The founders of historical material-
ism also drew on the conceptions of utopian socialism, a wide-
spread ideological trend of the 19th century.

These conceptions were highly critical of capitalism, for their
advocates dreamed of a better social set-up, a society free from
exploitation, inequality, and humiliation of the individual.
Spreading wide in the epoch of bourgeois revolutions in Europe,
the theories of utopian socialism expressed the disenchantment
with the results of these revolutions. The authors of these theo-
ries were convinced that a fairer social system should, be based
on the achievements of capitalism and, at the same time, on a
recognition of legal, political and social equality with regard to
property. Henri Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier and Robert Owen,
the leading theorists of utopian socialism, placed their main em-
phasis on the question of restructuring the society on the prin-
ciples of the Enlightenment and a peaceful propaganda of social-
ist ideas, without any revolution. But alongside these undoubt-
edly fantastic projects, the theories of the utopian socialists also
contained a number of valuable propositions (on historical prog-
ress, labour education, planned economic development, on over-
coming the antithesis between mental and manual work, between
town and country, etc.). Many of these tenets were assimilated
and eventually reworked by the founders of Marxist social theory.

With the emergence of Marxism, utopian socialism did not
disappear of its own accord, and its development continued in
contrast to the scientific socialism of Marx and his followers. In
our day, utopian socialism is one of the lines of bourgeois and pet-
ty-bourgeois thought. As their reflection, it continues to exert a
certain influence on the ideologues of national liberation, anti-co-
lonial and anti-imperialist movements, especially in countries
Where capitalist development has been slow and uneven, where

3—1807 33

vestiges of the past still remain, and where the need to overcome
these vestiges is translated into diverse utopian ideals of revolu-
tionary democracy (the peasant socialism of the Narodniks in
19th-century Russia), left and right populism (Latin America in
the 1950s-1980s) and “third way” conceptions (Asian and
African countries in the 1950s-1980s).

Although the utopian conceptions of socialism in our day em-
phasise the question of how to restructure the society, they cannot
give a correct answer to it, for they lack an understanding of
the essence of economic and social inequality under capitalism,
the laws of its development, and the motive forces that are ca-
pable of creating a new society.

2. HISTORICAL AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS

So, the main theoretical sources of Marxism were, first, classical
German philosophy; second, English political economy; and third,
French utopian socialism.

The emergence of Marxist social theory, the way for which
was paved by the whole preceding development of progressive |
philosophical, political and social thought, was also connected
with definite historical conditions, which should be considered in |
this context.

The 19th century was an epoch of the bourgeois society's wors-
ening economic contradictions and mounting social conflicts.

In Europe (primarily in Britain, Belgium and France), and
also in the USA, the first half of the 19th century was a period
when capitalism asserted itself. In other countries, it was still at
relatively early stages of its development.

In spite of the uneven development of capitalism, a world cap-
italist market was already being formed at that time, promoted
by the growth of international trade, the internationalisation
of production ties and the most diverse forms of division of la-
bour and exchange. All of that created conditions for an ap-
proximation of the processes of spiritual life (including cultural
and scientific) in different countries of the world.

Industrial development in the European and other countries
led to considerable changes in the social make-up of the popula-
tion, primarily through an accelerated numerical growth of the
industrial proletariat, a new social class. The growth of capitalist |
production, however, did not entail an improvement of the work-

34

ing people's living standards. Even at that time, the proletariat
was already beginning to realise the need for an organised strug-
gle for its vital rights, something that helped to consolidate the
working-class movement.

The development of a massive working-class movement made
it ever more necessary to elucidate the tasks of the working
people's economic (and, later on, political) struggle for their
vital rights. Phe working-class movement had to have its own,
independent ideological and theoretical platform. The develop-
ment of such a theory, which would equip the proletarian move-
ment with a correct understanding of its tasks and would meet
its ideological and practical demands, called for new principles
and a new approach to an assessment of the problems facing
the movement, with a view to the concrete social, historical, and
political conditions of the epoch.

With the growth of revolutionary sentiments in Europe and
the invigoration of the proletariat’s struggle for its rights, the
working-class movement of the late 1840s faced a most imper-
ative problem: that of its theoretical and practical leadership.
(he movement was gathering momentum in Germany, France,
Austria-Hungary, Britain and Italy, turning into an interna-
tional phenomenon on the eve of the bourgeois revolutions of
the 1840s.

All of that could not pass unnoticed for bourgeois philosoph-
ers and social scientists, as they witnessed the erosion of the
idea about the abiding nature of the society based on private
property, exploitation, and deep-rooted social inequality.

However, the problems of development of the bourgeois so-
ciety raised by social theorists serving the interests of the proper-
tied classes remained beyond their comprehension: on the whole,
social science in that period was still far from an adequate for-
mulation and understanding of the contradictions of social devel-
opment, primarily in view of the inconsistent and limited world-
outlook principles underlying bourgeois philosophical and socio-
logical thought, and in view of the fact that it advocated a
bourgeois class stand. ‘The thing to do, therefore, was fully to re-
examine the world-outlook principles lying at the root of social
cognition,

It was Marx and Engels who undertook that difficult task.
making a critical study not only of the successes scored by the

35

various social, economic and philosophical doctrines of the day.
but also of their mistakes and shortcomings. Marx and Engels,
the two most progressive thinkers of the day, succeeded in doing
that. They assimilated the achievements of European philosophy
and science, re-examined them and fitted them into their new,
dialectico-materialist world outlook.

3. THE FOUNDERS OF THE MATERIALIST THEORY
OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Marx's theoretical and practical activity in the 1840s led him
up to a clash, and then to a complete break with the Young
Hegelians. Realising that their doctrines were totally invalid, he
rejected their conservative, conciltatory tendency.

In the mid-18+40s, Marx was already very close to materialism.
At that time, he made an intensive study of history, political
economy and the ideas of utopian socialism. Under the impact
of the revolutionary upswing in Germany and other countries,
Marx (together with Engels, whom he met in Paris in 1844 and
with whom he worked for many years) came to the conclusion
of the need to combine the working people’s movement for their
vital rights with a new scientific world outlook.

Marx's Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 were
the first theoretical step in that direction. Later on, he wrote his
Theses on Feuerbach (1845) and The Poverty of Philosophy
(1847). Together with Engels, he wrote The Holy Family (1845)
and The German Ideology (1845-1846), which were major
landmarks along the way of fruitful cooperation between the two
outstanding thinkers in elaborating dialectical and historical ma-
terialism.

In 1848, Marx and Engels wrote the Manifesto of the Com-
munist Party on the instructions of the Second Congress of the
Communist League, the first international organisation of
the proletariat. As Lenin put it, the Manifesto contained
“a new world-conception, consistent materialism, which also
embraces the realm of social life™.*

The Manifesto was a reflection of the scientific, materialist
view of history and contained the hasic propositions of the theory
of class struggle, seen as the main motive force of history. The

"WV. 1. Lenin, “Karl Marx”, Collected Works, Vol. 21. p. 48.

36

Manifesto brought out and substantiated the role of the proletar-
jat as the progressive social class in the struggle for revolution-
ary economic, political and social transformations.

Many provisions of the Manifesto were eventually developed
in subsequent works by the founders of scientific communism.
\s Marx and Engels created the new philosophy and the scien-
tific materialist theory of the society closely connected with it,
they simultaneously pointed out the way to a solution of a whole
range of urgent problems of scientific theory and revolutionary
practice. The new philosophy dialectical and historical mate-
rialism was meant to answer imperative questions of the day,
substantiate the new understanding of the laws of nature and
the society, and provide a theoretical foundation for the scien-
tific world outlook.

In elaborating the problems of philosophical materialism, Marx
and Engels gave the deepest-ever analysis of capitalism, one of
the most complicated socio-economic formations. Marx’s great-
est politico-economic work was Capital, on which he worked
for something like 40 years, until his death. Alongside an in-
depth economic analysis of the true essence of the capitalist
mode of production as the basis of the system of relations consti-
tuting the bourgeois society, and alongside a critique of the theo-
ries of bourgeois political economy as its reflection, Marx elabo-
rated from every angle the materialist understanding of history
and the problems relating to the scientific method of historical
research. In showing the essence of that method, Lenin empha-
sised: “In Capital, Marx applied to a single science logic, dialec-
tics and the theory of knowledge of materialism. . 2”?

Capital’s method is an organic unity of the materialist under-
standing of history, the laws of dialectics, its key categories and
modes of research. At the same time, Capital’s approach to an
analysis of the bourgeois realities implies an interaction of all
the components of the Marxist doctrine: philosophy, political
economy and scientific socialism.

In his Capital, Marx deepened the understanding of the gen-
eral structure of the society, the main uniformities of its devel-
opment as a succession of socio-economic formations. While
examining the dialectics of the labour process, of social produc-

Nes I. Lenin, “Plan of Hegel’s Dialectics (Logic)”, Collected Works,
Vol. 38, 1980, p. 317.

37

tion, Marx also laid bare the main prerequisites for changes in
the social structure, for its revolutionary transformation. It is
only in the context of Capital that one can understand both the
earlier works of the founders of Marxism. projecting the main
lines of historical and social research. and their subsequent works,
containing a theoretical generalisation of the experience of bour-
geois revolutions. like The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850
(1850). The Fighteenth Brumaire of Louts Bonaparte (1852). and
also such summary works as The Civil War in France (1871)
and Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875).

Engels. whose scientific and publicistic activity was closely tied
in with Marx’s theoretical interests and creative quest, also did
a great deal to elaborate the principles of the historical material-
ist analysis of the society and its development laws. In The Con-
dition of the Working Class in England (1844-1845), Principles
of Communism (1847). Revolution and Counter-Revolution in
Germany (1852), in his 1867 reviews of the first volume of Cap-
ital, showing its significance. and also in his <Anti-Diihring
(1876-1878), The Origin of the Family, Private Property and
the State (1884) and Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classi-
cal German Philosophy (1886), Engels elucidated and specified
many questions of the scientific materialist view of history, the
key propositions and principles of Marxist social theory and so-
cial reconstruction.

A major step on the way to the new social theory was the
rejecuon by its founders of the predominant abstract and spe-
culative view of philosophy, a view which diverted philosophy
from man’s practical tasks.

Rejecting idealism in the understanding of history and the
society, Marx and Engels envisaged the new philosophy as a
world outlook and. at the same time, as a theory of the prac-
tical transformation of obsolete social relations. So, for the first
time in the history of philosophy and social thought, Marx and
Engels connected the problem of restructuring the society not
only with the changes effected by philosophy in human minds.
but also with a radical re-orientation of — social practice itself.
That was the fundamental distinction of the new materialism
extended by Marx and Engels to the sphere of social cognition
from the views on history and the society contained in earlier
and contemporary philosophical and sociological conceptions. As

38

Marx wrote at the time. “The weapon of criticism cannot, of
course. replace criticism by weapons, material force must be
overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a mate-
rial force as soon as it has gripped the masses.””*

Marx and Engels consistently deepened and developed the
hasic propositions of their social theory. criticising the contempla-
tive and limited world outlooks of earlier philosophy, making a
politico-economic study of the genesis of capitalism and its de-
velopment. polemicising with the apologetic conceptions of the
English economists (primarily Adam Smith and David Ricardo.
who asserted the “eternal” nature of private property) and with
various sociological conceptions (the Young Hegelians, Thomas
Carlyle. and others), and analysing the experience of the Euro-
pean working-class movement in the context of the 19th-century
bourgeois revolutions. Their theory was the outcome of a long
period which lasted for almost half a century (from 1843, when
Marx wrote his Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philoso-
phy of Law, in which he first began to elaborate the principles
of his new theory, and up to the early 1890s, when Engels wrote
his well-known letters on historical materialism, summing up the
results of his and Marx’s elaboration of the fundamental prob-
lems of social cognition). All these years, they kept re-examin-
ing in a critical spirit the experience they had gained through
a study of various aspects of life under capitalism and an analy-
sis of the achievements and conclusions that were at the dispos-
al of the social sciences at that time.

Historical materialism developed in constant polemics with
institutionalised, academic bourgeois social science. in opposition
to its conceptions. Hence the attitude of bourgeois social scien-
tists to historical materialism: they ignored it in the lifetime of
its founders (alongside criticism and “refutations’), and later on
resorted to an ever more refined falsification of its major propo-
sitions.

Nevertheless. in the specific conditions of capitalist develop-
ment in the final decades of the 19th century, Marxism aroused
exceptional interest, especially among the revolutionary-minded

* Karl Marx. “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of

Law. Introduction”, in: Karl Marx. Frederick Engels, Collected Works,
Vol. 3. 1975, p. 182.

39

representatives of the working class in countries such as Britain.
France, Germany and Russia (and = many other countries of
Europe and America), which were entering the phase of accel-
erated industrial development. Capitalist industrialisation in these
countries swelled the ranks of the proletariat. promoted its rapid
concentration, and aggravated many social contradictions. It is
only natural, therefore, that in their quest for an answer to the
burning questions of social development progressive social strata
in these countries increasingly turned to Marxist thought. The
experience accumulated by revolutionary and national liberation
movements in that period also promoted a rapid spread of Marx-
ism on the European and American continents.

The spread of Marxism, however, was accompanied by an
activisation of forces which opposed the very idea of radical so-
cial transformations, taking an apologetic stand with regard to
the capitalist system. At that time, the question about the ways
of its transformation-—reform or revolution was particularly
acute, causing numerous disputes and discussions and so also
various utopian and often most contradictory projects of social
“renewal”.

Thus, the European socialist working-class movement was
marked by ever more evident retrograde tendencies, connected
with the attempts of some of its leaders (Eduard Bernstein, Karl
Kautsky and others) to revise and re-interpret the major propo-
sitions of the Marxist doctrine of revolution. ‘Trends connected
with right-wing opportunism and revisionism were gaining
ground, and there was also a wide spread of “leftist” theories (in
the form of “revolutionary syndicalism”. —mostly in the Romanic
countries where anarchist traditions were particularly tenacious).

In the conditions of the steady rise of the revolutionary work-
ing-class movement, the task of defending the achievements of
Marxist thought became ever more imperative. Marxist propa-
gandists were doing a great deal to that effect. Josef Dietzgen
and Franz Mehring (Germany), Paul Lafargue (France), Dmit-
ri Blagoev (Bulgaria), Antonio Labriola (Italy), José Mesa
(Spain), Georgi Plekhanov (Russia), Carlos Maridtegui (Peru),
and others raised a resolute voice against any distortions of the
key theoretical propositions and conclusions of the Marxist
doctrine.

The advocates of Marxism also did a great deal to develop

40

i .

the principles of the scientific critique of idealism and subjectiv-
ism in philosophy and sociology. A critical analysis of the expe-
rience of the working-class movement and social development
in general, on the one hand, and of the tendencies of its reflec-
tion by bourgeois thought and the petty-bourgeois mentality, on
the other—such was the main line along which Marxist propa-
gandists sought to strengthen the positions of the scientific world
outlook.

Under the deepening socio-political crisis of tsarism in Russia
and a steady upswing of the revolutionary movement, the ad-
vanced section of the Russian society in the final quarter of
the 19th century showed a growing interest in Marxism and,
in their search for answers to the urgent questions of the day,
increasingly turned to Marxism. It was necessary to combat the
various revisionist trends in philosophy and sociology, which were
spreading and becoming ever more active both in Europe and
Russia itself, and which openly sought to falsify the Marxist
doctrine. In Russia’s liberal philosophical, economic and _socio-
logical thought in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there
was hardly a single trend which did not seek a “dialogue” with
Marxism, claiming either to “refute” or to “supplement” and
“critically develop” it in a bid to adapt Marxism to the needs
of an ideological renewal of the various devalued and bankrupt
apologetic bourgeois doctrines.

There was an abundance of such trends: economism, Narod-
ism. “legal Marxism” (and in bourgeois philosophy —Machism,
the Russian version of empirio-criticism1), to say nothing of open-
ly anti-Marxist trends, and all of these clamoured for a “review”
of the theoretical legacy of Marx and Engels.

In these extremely complicated conditions, the most pressing
task was to maintain and defend the progressive Marxist revo-
lutionary doctrine. In order to do that, one had to answer the
imperative questions of the revolutionary movement, its theory
and practice. Under the confrontation between the progressive,
proletarian ideology and the reactionary, bourgeois ideology of
the period, all this required, first and = foremost a convincing
theoretical and socio-critical analysis of the unsound petty-bour-
geois and other similar philosophical and sociological theories.

In late 19th-century and early 20th-century Russia, that task
was undertaken by Lenin, whose works contained the fullest and

41

consistent answer to the objective of maintaining and develop-
ing the Marxist theory in a creative spirit.

Lenin made an immense contribution to the struggle against
bourgeois revisionist and dogmatic distortions of the Marxist
theory. ushering in a new period of its fruitful development. Le-
ninism) was a direct continuation of the Marxist doctrine and
a new phase in its history, a major achievement not only of Rus-
sian. but also of world science and culture. Lenin’s contribu-
tion to the development of Marxism was not confined. as West-
ern theorists sometimes allege, to the historical destiny of Russia
alone. Having tied in the tasks of its revolutionary transforma-
tion with the main conclusions stemming from the Marxist doct-
rine, Lenin creatively developed that doctrine in accordance with
the new realities of world development and the present epoch as
a whole. That ts why Lenin’s contribution to Marxist theory is
still relevant in our day.

In his first major work What the “Friends of the People” Are
and How They Fight the Social-Democrats, written in 1894,
Lenin already analysed and invalidated the sociological views of
the Russian Narodniks (as well as sociological subjectivism as a
whole), their interpretations of social life, and showed _ their
unscientific basis.

In a period when both Russian and Western sociology were
witnessing a revival of Comtism and positivism, on the one hand,
and a growing interest in neo-Kantianism with a resultant emer-
gence and strengthening of subjectivist orientations, on the other,
Lenin's theoretical conclusions reaffirmed that the truly scien-
tific tradition of sociological thinking goes hack to the Marxist
philosophy, and that this tradition is closely tied in with the
scientific dialectical methodology of social cognition. It was
Marx. as Lenin emphasised, who had discovered and explained
from a consistently scientific standpoint the objective laws of the
society and its progressive development. for the first time ever
putting sociology on a strictly scientific basis.

In that work. Lenin showed the essence and the indissoluble
unity of the philosophical and general sociological foundations
of Marxist social theory. In accordance with Marx, he proved
that the dialectical method, “which consists in regarding society
as a living organism in a state of constant development’, had
~— ? Sce V. 1. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 1. pp. 165-66.

42

been and remained the only scientific method of social cogni-
tion.t In his polemics with the subjectivist sociological concep-
tions of the Russian Narodniks (and other similar theories), J.e-
nin emphasised that under the Marxist approach the society is
viewed as an aggregate of social relations constituting an inte-
gral social organism, which changes according to objective laws
intrinsic to it alone.?

Lenin's What the “Friends of the People’ Are and How They
Fight the Social-Democrats was of great importance for a cri-
tique of the whole system of subjective-idealist views character-
istic of Russian (and foreign) idealist philosophy and sociology.
‘That work marked the beginning of a new stage in the develop-
ment of Marxism, in the elaboration of the key problems of
Marxist social theory. It reflected one of the main specific fea-
tures of Lenin’s thinking as a Marxist philosopher and sociologist:
his ability to apply general principles and theoretical proposi-
tions to an analysis of concrete historical and social reality, to the
political tasks stemming from the conditions of the class strug-
gle carried on by the proletariat and its allies.

In that work. Lenin countered subjectivism and the metap-
hysical method of thinking with Marxist dialectics, applying the
scientific dialectical assumption that truth is concrete to the cog-
nition of social life. He elaborated the materialist understanding
of the laws of social development. and the role of the masses, clas-
ses. and individuals in history. Examining the essence of the re-
volution in philosophy and social cognition carried out by Marx
and Engels, Lenin passionately defended the Marxist, material-
ist understanding of history and continued elaborating such key
categories of historical materialism as socio-economic formation,
mode of production, social relations, etc.

Ihe principles for a critique of anti-Marxist philosophical and
sociological conceptions outlined in that work were subsequently
deepened and developed in Lenin’s later works. He gave a
meaningful critical analysis of the “objectivism” of bourgeois
social science in “The Economic Content of Narodism and the
Criticism of Tt in Mr. Struve’s Book’, an article written and
published in 1894-1895, and also in his Uneritical Criticism,
which came out in 1900. In these works. Lenin showed the futil-

"Tbid., p. 165.

* Ibid., p. 166.

ity of the efforts by the so-called “legal Marxists’ to impose a
“supra-class” stand and abstract “humanism” on social science.

In contrast to the bourgeois objectivism of the “legal Marx-
ists”, Lenin advocated a consistent Marxist understanding of the
partisan nature of the social sciences. He showed the faults of
Narodism and “legal Marxism”, conditioned by their petty-bour-
geois class nature: idealism, inconsistency, “abstract dogmatism”
and, in consequence of that, an inability to make a concrete
analysis of real phenomena. Coming out against any dogmatism,
Lenin emphasised: “We do not regard Marx's theory as some-
thing completed and inviolable; on the contrary, we are convinc-
ed that it has only laid the foundation stone of the science which
socialists musé develop in all directions if they wish to keep pace
with life.”

The works written by Lenin on the eve of the First Russian
Revolution of 1905 and right after it made a considerable con-
tribution to Marxist social theory.

In these works (Where to Begin, What Is to Be Done?, One
Step Forward, Two Steps Back, and Two Tactics of Social-De-
mocracy in the Democratic Revolution), he focussed on a dia-
lectico-materialist analysis of the working-class struggle and its
tactics under a bourgeois-democratic revolution and the perspec-
tives of its development into a socialist revolution. In elaborating
the problems of the working people's revolutionary struggle, Le-
nin developed and specified the key propositions of the Marxist
doctrine on the growing importance of the subjective factor in
the historical process, ou the role of the masses. the proletariat
and its party in a democratic revolution, and on the diversity of
the concrete forms and methods of the working people's class
struggle for radical social transformations.

Against the background of the intensive struggle between clas-
ses and ideologies, which in that period permeated virtually every
area of life in Russia, Lenin continued his struggle against bour-
geois and petty-bourgeois conceptions, which were hostile to his-
torical materialism, which rejected the proletariat’s leading role
in the bourgeois-democratic revolution as the vanguard of the
working masses. and which saw the bourgeoisie as the “hegemio-

nic force” of the social movement. He proved beyond any doubt

"VL 1. Lenin, “Our Programme”, Collected Works, Vol. 4
pp. 211-12.

, 1977.

44

SS oe Ee

that these theorists took a bourgeois class stand, that they delib-
crately “disparage the materialist conception of history by ig-
noring the active, leading and guiding part which can and must
be played in history by parties that have realised the material
prerequisites of a revolution and have placed themselves at the
head of the progressive classes."

Lenin showed that under the new balance of forces in Russia,
the revolution-fearing bourgeoisie wanted a compromise, a deal
with tsarism in order to retain its privileges and its position, that
the true hegemonic force of the revolution was the working
class, which was able in alliance with the peasantry and other
scni-proletarian strata to carry out radical social transforma-
tions, and that such an alliance of the toiling classes was an ex-
pression of the objective law of action by the masses, the leading
force of history.

In his “Preface to the Russian Translation of Karl Marx's
Letters to Dr. Kugelmann” (1907), Lenin emphasised the need
to regard history “from the standpoint of those who make it”
and to attach paramount importance to “the Aistorical initiative
of the masses”, tying in the theory and practice of revolutionary
transformations, as required by the conditions of the working
people's struggle for their vital rights, without any attempts to
adjust or distort these in order to justify the existing system.’

After the defeat of the revolution of 1905, Russia went through
a period of reaction. The prevailing mood in the country was
one of pessimism, with a marked invigoration of diverse idealis-
tic philosophico-religious trends, including those of god-seeking
and god-building. Via journalism, fiction and art, the ideas con-
nected with these trends spread among and were assimilated by
diverse social groups and strata. ‘Their influence was also evident
among Russia’s working class.

In analysing the ideological situation at the time, Lenin for-
mulated a set of basic theoretical propositions of historical mia-
terialism, showing the specifics of political and spiritual culture,
and the peculiarities of its functioning under definite class rela-
tions and socio-class structures. In such articles as “Party Orga-
nisation and Party Literature” (1905), “Leo Tolstoy as the Mir-

*V. 1. Lenin, “Pwo ‘Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic

Revolution”, Collected Works, Vol. 9, 1977, p. 44.
Vid. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 12. 1977, pp. 109, 111.

ror of the Russian Revolution” (1908), “Marxism and Revision-
ism” (1908), he showed the concrete sociological content of the
processes in spiritual life connected with literary, scientific, po-
litico-journalistic and other types of creative spiritual activity. He
showed that the artist, scientist or journalist is closely tied im
with the society in which and for which he works, that he is
responsible to it for the results of his work, for his special, con-
scious civic stand, which implies defence of the definite interests
of definite classes and the partisan nature of literature, art, phi-
losophy and other social sciences. In his “Marxism and Revi-
sionism”, Lenin pointed out the philosophical sources of revision-
ism in the working-class movement and exposed the attempts
to “combine” Marxism with hostile idealistic doctrines and to
renounce materialist dialectics.

Lenin’s articles aimed against the influence of religious ideas
on the working-class movement, primarily The Attitude of the
Workers’ Party to Religion and Classes and Parties in Their <At-
litude to Religion and the Church (spring and summer 1909),
were of exceptional importance in that period. In these articles,
Lenin outlined and substantiated the Party’s tactics in matters of
religion on the strength of the basic propositions of Marxist athe-
ism, supplementing and developing these in a brilliant way.

In that period of political reaction, idealist philosophy served
as an active ideological vehicle for the attempts to revise the
basic theoretical principles of the Marxist doctrine. In their
struggle against that doctrine, the ideologues of the Russian
bourgeoisie turned to the “latest” (including Western) forms of
idealism, spreading disbelief in the existence of objective laws of
social progress and the possibility of their scientific cognition. In
these complicated conditions, it was more important than ever
before to expose the idealist and subjectivist tricks of bourgeois
philosophy and social science.

In his Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, which he wrote in
the period from February to October 1908, and which became
his main philosophical work, Lenin gave a well-argumented crit-
ical analysis of the “latest’’ forms of idealism. In that book, he
answered the difficult questions raised by the development of
philosophy, the natural sciences and social cognition. In the bril-
liant polemical form of an intense and ceaseless dialogue with
the opponents of Marxism, Lenin invalidated the idealistic spec-

46

ulations on the latest theoretico-cognitive and social problems,
and gave a detailed solution of these problems from the stand-
point of dialectical and historical materialism.

He then went on to criticise the idealistic schools of bourgeois
philosophy and sociology of the imperialist epoch. He examined
the idealistic roots of the subjectivism of the so-called “empirio-
critical” philosophy and showed it to be antithetical to the scien-
tific materialist understanding of the problems of natural science
and social cognition. Empirio-criticism (as represented by the
Russian Machists) sought to “supplement” and “develop” Marx-
ist philosophy on the principles of agnosticism. Tracing the con-
nection of empirio-criticism to the so-called “immanent school”
and other idealistic tendencies in philosophy, Lenin showed the
reactionary nature of its conceptions, which lead up to fideism
(reliance on faith rather than reason).

Lenin criticised V. Bazarov, .\. Bogdanov (Malinovsky) and
other Russian Machists, and showed the complete untenability
of their “theories”, in which social being was in effect identi-
fied with social consciousness. He showed that the objective logic
of social development and its laws could not be reduced to a
subjective reflection of social reality by the human consciousness.
Consistently advocating the materialist approach to social re-
search, Lenin brought out and substantiated the basic uniformi-
ties of the dialectics of social being and its reflection in human
consciousness, the former’s independence from the latter and,
at the same time, the active, creative role of social consciousness
(primarily the consciousness of progressive social classes) in the
fundamental transformations of the capitalist society.

In Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, Lenin upheld the Marx-
ist understanding of cognition, just as philosophy itself, as a
socially conditioned process. He proved the unavoidably partisan
nature of any philosophy, including that which claims (as the
Machists did) to “overcome the extremes” of materialism and
idealism, and to have its special “supra-party” world outlook. In
actual fact, as Lenin showed, the “‘supra-party” position of the
Machists primarily meant a refusal to put philosophy at the ser-
vice of scientific cognition and its progress. He countered the
Machists’ claims with the consistent and strictly partisan posi-
tion of Marxist philosophy, which geared the process of man’s
cognition of the world to the task of its radical transformation.

47

While elaborating the cardinal problems of scientific material-
ist philosophy, Lenin sought to propagate the Marxist heritage as
a whole. In March 1913, he published “The Historical Destiny
of the Doctrine of Karl Marx”, which contained a scientific pe-
riodisation of the main stages in the development of Marxism.
Another of his works published that year--—’The Three Sources
and ‘Three Component Parts of Marxism’—analysed the histor-
ical roots of the Marxist doctrine, its continuity with the early
achievements of progressive thought. In November 1914, Lenin’s
short article “Karl Marx” was published. Written specially for
the Granat Encyclopaedia, it was meant for the mass reader and
gave a full and profound characterisation of Marx’s doctrine in
a simple and concise form.

Lenin’s Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916)
was a creative elaboration of the main conclusions of Marx’s
analysis of capitalism. In that book, he showed the dialectics of
the contradictions in the social and economic development of
the contemporary capitalist society, which created the prerequi-
sites for a socialist revolution, for a replacement of capitalism
with socialism. On the strength of his earlier-discovered law of
imperialism’s uneven economic and political development, Lenin
consistently substantiated and developed his earlier conclusion
(first formulated in his work “On the Slogan for a United States
of Europe” in 1915) about the possibility of a socialist revo-
lution winning out first in one or several countries.

Later on, Lenin continued to focus his attention on the ques-
tion about the ways and forms of socialist revolution. The key
problems of Marxist social theory connected with that question.
analysis of the class essence of different types of democracy
and dictatorship, forms of power, and conditions under which
the state is maintained or disappears—were examined in The
State and Revolution (1917), The Proletarian Revolution and
the Renegade Kautsky (1918), The State (1919), “Left-Wing”
Communism—an Infantile Disorder (1920), and others.

Lenin specified, deepened and developed the main problems
of Marxist social theory in the context of the concrete tasks of
the working-class struggle. He not only tied in Marxist ideas
and conclusions with the needs of revolutionary practice, but
creatively developed and applied these ideas in the course of
the socialist revolution in Russia and in the subsequent struggle

48

to restructure the backward country and turn it into an advanced,
economically and politically independent state, the first state
in history to build a socialist society, which took a short time
to eliminate exploitation, mass unemployment, illiteracy, econom-
ic and social inequality.

Lenin’s contribution to the social theory founded by Marx
and Engels is not confined to some of its aspects or conclusions.
Lenin’s theory of revolution, his doctrine of the state, and his
ideas on socialist construction consistently developed, deepened
and supplemented the crucial philosophical and sociological con-
clusions of Marx and Engels. The practice of building the new
society in the USSR and other countries, now advancing along
the road of socialism, peace and progress, reaffirms the histori-
cal value of Lenin’s contribution to the scientific revolutionary
theory of the world’s renewal.

Lenin’s contribution to Marxist theory is inseparable from the
doctrine bequeathed to us by Marx, Engels and their followers.
He is the one who extended the conclusions of Marxism to so-
cial practice in the 20th century. As a continuation of Marxism,
Leninism makes up with it a single, indivisible whole: Marxism-
Leninism. The Marxist-Leninist doctrine is the Marxism of the
20th century.

* %x*

In summing up Chapter Two, let us go over its main points:

--Marxist social theory emerged as a continuation and de-
velopment of the main achievements accumulated by the earlier
philosophical and social thought of the most advanced countries;

—developing in the course of intensive class battles in the
capitalist society, that theory was a logical result of the scientific
analysis of its main tendencies, the outcome of the new, material-
ist understanding of history;

--that theory was founded by Marx and Engels, and Lenin
elaborated its main propositions in a consistent and creative way;

—Lenin upheld historical materialism against attacks by its
adversaries, deepening, developing and creatively applying its
key propositions to the practical revolutionary transformation of
the capitalist society;

the importance of Lenin’s contribution to Marxist social
theory is confirmed by the whole course of present-day social de-
velopment.

4—1807 49

Chapter Three
THE SOCIETY AND HISTORY

1, NATURE AND THE SOCIETY

Marx and Engels showed in The German Ideology that the very
existence of living human individuals is the first real prerequisite
of human history. That is why the first concrete fact from
which one should proceed in studying the history of the human
society is “the physical organisation of these individuals and their
consequent relation to the rest of nature’.1 Man, just as the
society in which he lives, is a part of nature, is inseparable from
it and keeps interacting with it.

What is the interconnection between the human society and
the natural world? What is its basis?

Marxist theory answers each of these questions on the assump-
tion that man cannot exist without satisfying his intrinsic, natu-
ral, biological needs, primarily the need for food, clothes, a roof
over one’s head, protection from adverse natural isfluences (nat-
ural disasters, etc.)

The source from which all these needs are met is human la-
bour. As he begins to work in order to produce the values neces-
sary to maintain his existence, man enters into direct contact
with nature. Joining their efforts in the labour process, people
produce the necessary food and clothes, build houses, etc.

From the earliest days of human history, labour, material pro-
duction has been the initial prerequisite for an interaction be-
tween people and the surrounding natural world, a source of the
interconnection between nature and society. The genesis of the
human society is closely tied in with human labour, with the de-
velopment of material production.

It was only with the development of labour activity that man
gradually stood out from nature. The historical importance of
labour was brilliantly analysed by Engels in “The Part Played
by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man” (1876). He

* Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 5, 1976, p. 31.

50

eae

showed the emergence of man and primitive human association
with the development of human labour itself, of labour activity
as production by people of the means and conditions for their
existence. In the process of labour (which was the initial form
of man’s interaction with the surrounding natural world), man
learned to produce, i.e., to create the material values he needs,
developing material and spiritual culture and changing his own
self.

How did that process occur?

At first, man took the necessary material values from nature
in ready-made form, but eventually he also learned to make such
values from the simple natural components available to him
(wood, stone, etc.). In order to meet his vital needs, man was
obliged to keep perfecting his tools and the techniques of pro-
ducing these. Their perfection was parallelled by a development
of man’s labour skills. So, the character of labour and its orga-
nisation kept changing.

As labour was complexified, man had ever greater possibil-
ities for influencing nature. The development of labour cooper-
ation had immense consequences for the formation of man as a
social being. Social relations between people took shape in close
connection with the development of their joint labour activity,
with the development of the social character of labour.

Marx and Engels resolutely came out against any idealistic
conceptions of labour and of human activity as a whole. Such
conceptions are still being expounded by anthropologically orient-
ed and subjectivist trends of non-Marxist philosophy, which
contrast man and the society with the natural world, and so ac-
centuate the “antithesis” between the production and the spiri-
tual aspects of social life.

Marx and Engels showed that any attempt to contrast nature
and the society is based on essentially incorrect, idealistic premises,
and that it is only possible to take a scientific view of the cor-
relation between the social and natural prerequisites of human
life from the standpoint of the dialectico-materialist world out-
look. On the strength of such a dialectico-materialist understand-
ing of the correlation between these two aspects of human life
and activity—an understanding of the dialectical interdependence
of the natural and the social—Marxism shows the formation
and development of human practice in the course of interaction

4*

51

&G

between man and nature as the first and necessary prerequisite
of that activity.

Geographical environmeni. The geographical environment
constitutes the immediate natural conditions of human labour
activity.

The geographical environment is the part of nature (soil, riv-
ers, seas, climate, etc.) that is connected with all the aspects of
human life and activity in the society.

Marxist social theory views the society as a discrete part of
nature, coming out against the two extreme views: against an
exaggeration of the role of nature in social development and
against any underestimation of its influence on social progress.

The scientific explanation of the interconnection between the
natural and the social conditions of human life is based on this
dialectical formula: “In changing nature, man changes his own
self.”” One of the cornerstones of Marxist social theory is Marx’s
proposition that nature influences human history solely through
material production, depending on the level of its development.’
‘That proposition makes it possible to see how purposeful human
activity changes the natural conditions of human life, influences
man’s access to natural resources and through these exerts an
impact on the society.

At the same time, the interaction between man and nature
cannot be reduced to a one-way “appropriation” of natural re-
sources by human beings. As man’s habitat, nature itself is a cru-
cial condition of his activity.

It is common knowledge that the geographical and ecological
environments have a marked influence on the development of
man’s production of material values. That influence, however,
should not be oversimplified, for it manifests itself in the con-
text of definite social conditions of production. The availability
or absence of mineral resources, a favourable or unfavourable
climate, and other geographical factors can have a certain in-
fluence on the development of production. In themselves, how-
ever, these factors do not predetermine the nature of the produc-
tion process and social development. They can only promote or
slow down the development of social production, thereby also in-
fluencing the process of social development.

One should only look at the problems of economic back-

See Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. I, pp. 480-82.

52

wardness facing some developing countries to understand that con-
crete interdependence. In spite of their abundant mineral re-
sources, their favourable climate and rich farmland, these coun-
tries cannot as yet make full use of their resources. They are
prevented from doing so by the political and economic sway of
big transnational corporations (TNCs), imposed and sustained by
imperialism. The TNCs use every means at their disposal to make
profit through the plunderous exploitation of the developing
countries’ natural and manpower resources. That is one of the
aspects of the interaction between nature and the society under
capitalism. Under socialism, the interaction between them is
quite different. Rational use of natural and manpower resources
under socialism is a powerful instrument for accelerating social
progress.

So, it is precisely under the influence of social factors that
human attitudes to nature as to the source of material values
and a natural habitat keep changing and material production
keeps developing. An exaggeration of the influence of climate (and
the geographical environment as a whole) on social development,
which marks a number of sociological approaches, usually leads
to a one-sided understanding of the interaction between nature
and the society. These approaches are part of the so-called geo-
graphical trend, which comprises both “traditional” theories of
non-Marxist sociology based on a naturalistic exaggeration of
the role played by the geographical environment in social devel-
opment (the geographical determinism theories of Henry Tho-
mas Buckle, Victor Cousin and others, “social geography”, and
geopolitical doctrines justifying the political, economic and mil-
itary expansion of the imperialist states on the pretext of the
need for “living space”), and relatively new (ecological) con-
ceptions, which are looking for ways to “alleviate” the contradic-
tions of capitalism through a more rational use of natural re-
sources.

On the strength of its understanding of the dialectical inter-
connection between nature and the society, Marxist social theory
regards the society as a sphere of the integral natural world, and
the relations between the society and nature as an interaction
between part and whole.

Nature exerts a diverse influence on social life. Under its im-
pact and with a view to its consequences, people themselves exert

53

an active and deliberate influence on the elemental forces of
nature, channelling these along the required lines. Naturally, the
character of that reciprocal influence depends on the level of
science and material social production, on the social conditions,
which determine the purpose of man’s use of nature: in order
to benefit the society as a whole (as under socialism) or only to
meet the private interests of groups and individuals (as under
capitalism, whose main law has been and remains the private-
property law of maximising profit).

Ecological problems: their causes and effects. With the deve-
lopment of the society, the sphere of its active influence on na-
ture has been expanding. The connection between the natural and
social conditions of human existence is ever closer. That is evi-
dent from the numerous ecological problems, which have re-
cently taken a much graver turn against the background of the
general economic and social crisis of capitalism.

These problems have now acquired truly global dimensions,
for they affect not only the highly developed capitalist countries,
but also the developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin Ame-
rica, whose natural resources continue to be ruthlessly exploited
by the West with the use of neocolonialist methods. Soil erosion,
pollution of rivers, lakes and seas and of the World Ocean itself,
poisonous industrial waste killing plants and animals, extermina-
tion of rare species of animals (crocodiles, turtles, etc.) to meet
the whims of the capitalist fashion market—all these are the
results of an inhuman attitude to nature and lead to a serious
worsening of the ecological situation in the world.

It is only natural, therefore, that ever more people in the West
as well have been urging the need to eliminate the threat of an
ecological catastrophe (including that connected with the stock-
piling of nuclear, chemical and bacteriological weapons). The
movements for the right to life, for peace on the Earth, and in
defence of the environment are becoming a major universal
factor of political life. In the USA, Britain, the FRG and other
countries, these movements have engendered independent polit-
ical parties, which denounce the arms drive of the hourgeois states
and are against the stockpiling of lethal nuclear weapons. These
movements also help to draw the attention of broad strata in their
countries to the need to combat the shortsighted ecological poli-
cy of the capitalist states.

54

i

The Soviet Union and the other socialist countries have always
come out against the arms race, for general and complete disar-
mament. Mankind has no other reasonable alternative for the
future except peaceful coexistence. It is only in the conditions
of peaceful cooperation between states with different social sys-
tems that major steps can also be taken to a rational practical
solution of the ecological problems of our day.

A rational solution of these problems, just as their emergence,
has definite political and social prerequisites and consequences.
Under socialism man’s conscious efforts to protect nature make it
possible to maintain and keep multiplying its resources, while the
plunderous capitalist exploitation of nature dictated by an urge
to maximise profit inevitably leads to its extermination and up-
sets the ecological equilibrium. That often has negative social
consequences, worsening the people’s health by way of pollution
of the environment, crop failures, food shortages, etc. Under
the capitalist system, many of these problems keep getting
worse.

Population. The main productive force of the society is man
himself. Unravelling the mysteries of nature and transforming
nature and the society in the course of his labour activity, man
also exerts a direct influence on the production and reproduc-
tion of his own life.

The population’s growth rate, composition and density change
with the development of the society. Changes in the birth rate,
the overall rate of population growth, the density of the popula-
tion, its age structure, and other demographic factors entail defi-
nite changes in the economic, political and other spheres of the
society’s life. So, the population influences the society’s life as
a whole. At the same time, social conditions can also exert (and
often do exert) a direct influence on population growth. In oth-
er words, there is a close bilateral connection between social de-
velopment and the population.

Mankind’s history shows that social development paves the way
for faster population growth. The accelerating growth of the
world’s population is directly dependent on the development of
material social production: the replacement of old modes of
production with new and more progressive ones usually entails
an increase in the rate of population growth.

Here is how the population of the Earth has grown in differ-

35

ent historical periods. At the beginning of the Low Paleolithic
period, the population of the Earth was around 100,000-200,000,
rising to about one million by the beginning of the Upper Paleo-
lithic period, to 10 million by the beginning of the Neolithic pe-
riod (before the transition to cropping) and to 50 million by the
end of that period (after the transition to cropping). At the
beginning of our era the figure was 230 million, reaching 1 bil-
lion at the beginning of the 19th century, 2 billion by 1930, 3
billion by 1961, and 4 billion by 1976. At the beginning of 1984,
the figure was 4.7 billion. In the 1970s, the population’s growth
rate went up to 2 per cent a year, which could be described as
a population explosion.

Back in the 19th century, the British economist and clergyman
Thomas R. Malthus formulated his “law” asserting an imbalance
between population growth and the production of the means of
subsistence. Malthus claimed that population growth always tends
to outrun the growth of material production, causing many of
mankind’s afflictions: unemployment, poverty, hunger and mate-
rial privation. The only way to avert these misfortunes, he be-
lieved, was to impose rigid control over the birth rate among
the “lower classes” and limit the growth of the working popula-
tion.

Later on, bourgeois ideologues turned the Malthusian doctrine
into an instrument of their pseudo-scientific apologetics of eco-
nomic and social inequality under capitalism, using it to obscure
the aggressive ambitions of neocolonialism and the ruthless ex-
ploitation of the natural and manpower resources of the develop-
ing countries. Present-day Malthusians urge the need to mini-
mise population growth in the developing countries of Asia,
Africa and Latin America, straining to prove that this could pre-
vent the emergence of new millions of unemployed, hungry and
homeless. In the guise of family planning, projects to regulate
population growth rates, etc., the neo-Malthusians have been
trying to push through racist and inhuman ideas.

The Malthusian doctrine was invalidated back in the 19th
century by the founders of scientific communism, who showed
that it is not a population surplus that puts pressure on social
production, but that, on the contrary, the development of the
productive forces under capitalism creates an army of “redun-
dant” people. Marx saw such a dependence as the law of popu-

56

me ND

lation intrinsic to capitalism. Revealing the socio-economic pre-
requisites of the operation of that law, he scientifically substantiat-
ed the conclusion that population growth in the society is deter-
mined by the totality of the concrete historical conditions of its
development.

That conclusion is confirmed by the present demographic sit-
uation in the world. The final third of the 20th century has
become a period of unprecedented population growth on the
planet as a result of a drop in mortality and a rise in the birth
rate, mostly in the developing countries, which account for 90
per cent of the total population growth. The UN World Confer-
ence on Population at a governmental level, held in Mexico
City in August 1984, expressed extreme concern over the imbal-
ance between population growth, the planet’s resources and
the state of its ecology. It was noted that almost one billion peo-
ple in the world were already suffering from hunger and malnutri-
tion, and that by the end of the century, when the planet’s pop-
ulation reached 6.1 billion, only one-half of all the developing
countries would be able to feed their population. One of the
causes of such a state of affairs is the economic dependence of
these states on their former metropolitan countries and, as a re-
sult of that dependence, the extremely poor and lopsided devel-
opment of their productive forces.

In the conditions of social change, which accelerated once
these countries rose to political independence, the development of
the productive forces continued to lag behind population growth.
That called for a special population policy to regulate that
growth, a policy which has already been adopted by about 40
Asian and African states. But the birth control measures adopted
under that policy naturally cannot resolve the grave population
problems. As the participants in the World Conference unani-
mously recognised, these problems should be solved in the context
of the concrete economic and political conditions of each
country.

The population is a factor of social development, although it
is not decisive. Its growth rate and density can markedly facili-
tate or obstruct social development. Thus, low density could mean
a slower growth of economic ties, inadequate division of labour,
and a less than full development of the natural resources of some
regions. A high density, on the other hand, creates prerequisites

o7

for an intensification of production, division of labour, etc.,
but it could also cause underuse of manpower resources. In each
particular case, the development level of production is determined
by the nature of the social system, and not only by the density
of the population. Population growth does not in itself deter-
mine the course of social development.

To sum up, nature, the geographical environment and the
population factor constitute the necessary conditions of human
life and production activity. These conditions are a constant
two-way link between nature and man, between nature and the
society, close and indissoluble: just as nature is a necessary pre-
requisite of the human society, remaining its necessary compo-
nent, so the society itself is a part of the natural world.

So, while constituting the necessary and ever-present natural
material conditions of human life in the society, the geographi-
cal environment and population growth are not the crucial fac-
tors of social development. Such a factor, or prerequisite, is the
production of material values.

2. PRODUCTION

People’s material production activity aimed at meeting their
vital needs is seen by Marxist social theory as the starting point
of human life in the society.

Marx and Engels showed in The German Ideology that the
production of material values by people is not confined to meet-
ing their vital needs, but also involves a reproduction of their
mode of life as a whole. They explained the importance of pro-
duction activity for the moulding and development of man him-
self as a social being. They tied in their understanding of man’s
social nature with the view of material production as a special
type of activity which forms the basis for the whole range of re-
lations that unite people and constitute the society.t

Later on, in analysing the uniformities regulating these re-
lations in his Capital, Marx brought out the main prerequisites,
which are rooted in the development uniformities of the process
of material social production. He showed how socio-economic,
ideological and other relations emerge and develop from that pro-

‘ See Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 31.

58

cess, giving rise to historically conditioned types of social organi-
sation. As he deepened and elaborated one of the basic catego-
ries of scientific social theory, the category of the mode of pro-
duction, Marx started from the unity of the relations and condi-
tions of material social production.

Mode of production. This category is central to Marxist social
theory and is therefore closely connected with its other categories.
lo understand it, one should turn to such key concepts of Marx-
ist social theory as labour, the objects and means of labour, ma-
terial production (or the production of material values), the in-
struments and means of production, the productive forces, and
the relations of production. The initial concept here is labour,
and that is where we shall begin.

As it was explained above, it was labour which enabled man
to stand out from nature. People meet their prime wants in food,
clothes and housing by means of labour. Nature cannot supply
them with the necessary material values in ready-made form.
In order to obtain these values, it is necessary to produce them,
and that requires labour.

That is why labour is one of man’s prime wants.

What is labour? It is a process in which human activity me-
diates, regulates and controls the metabolism between man and
nature. Acting on natural objects in a purposeful way, man trans-
forms them.

Even the gathering of fruits, which are given to man by na-
ture in “ready-made form”, hunting, fishing, etc., are part of
the mutual exchange between man and nature, a process in which
man acts upon nature and transforms its conditions. The initial
elements of that process are:

—first, labour itself as purposeful human activity;

—second, the objects of labour, i.e., the objects at which hu-
man activity is directed, the part of nature that is used by man
for obtaining the required product; by extracting the substance
to be processed in the course of labour, man himself creates the
object of his labour (thus, metal, wood and fibre are objects of
labour because a definite amount of labour has already been spent
on them);

—third, the means of labour, the most important among which
are the instruments of labour by means of which man performs
labour and acts upon the object of his labour.

59

The objects and means of labour are the material elements
of the labour process. In their totality, they constitute the means
of production.

Material production is the area of social life in which people
work to create the material product that goes either into collec-
tive or into personal use.

The production of material values is a process in which many
diverse types of human labour activity interact with each other.
After all, even in order to make a fairly simple device or to
obtain a product that is yielded by nature with relative ease (like
fish, game or fruit), it is often necessary to coordinate the knowl-
edge, skills, experience and results of the labour of many people.
It is impossible to sow, raise, harvest and preserve a crop without
the simplest implements, which are made by some people and
used in their labour activity by others. Any type of material
production is marked by a division of functions, by specialisation.
So, associating and concentrating the most diverse forms of hu-
man labour activity, material production provides the basis for
the society.

In the production of material values, as it was noted above,
people interact with nature. That interaction creates the society’s
productive forces.

The productive forces are the means of production and the
people themselves who in the course of the labour process act
upon nature and transform it, simultaneously developing and per-
fecting the means of production. People are the main element of
the material productive forces. They have production experience
and labour skills, which they keep perfecting and enriching in
the process of their production activity. In that way, they also
increase the productive power of their labour, with a simultaneous
development of their own creative potential.

The human factor is the crucial element of the productive
forces and should never be underestimated, for production is a
social process and exists for human beings, is created by them,
develops owing to their knowledge, skills and experience, owing
to their multifaceted day-to-day labour activity. In the course
of that process, people also interact between themselves, and
that interaction gives rise to the relations of production.

The relations of production are a complicated system of di-
verse ties, which take shape between people in the course of

60

their joint labour activity. These include not only people's re-
lations to the means of production, but also their relations among
themselves determined by each individual’s status in the system
of material production characteristic of the given society. Apart
from that, the relations of production also include the ties aris-
ing between people in the production ef material values, their
exchange, distribution and consumption; they also include the
relations between producers that stem from the specialisation of
their joint labour activity—from the division of labour between
producers.

So, the relations of production are a totality of the material
economic relations between people in the process of production
and the relations which characterise the movement of the social
product from production to consumption. All these relations de-
pend on the form of property in the means of production.

What does “form of property” signify in this context? It is a
definite mode of appropriation by people of the means of pro-
duction themselves and, consequently, of the results of labour. In
any society, production relations are based on a definite form
of property, which determines the nature of the functioning and
development of the production relations system as a whole. The
status of each particular individual in the system of production
relations also depends on who owns the means of production.

The owner of land or any other private property( factories,
plants, workshops, banks, etc.) has an essentially different status
as compared with that of the worker, engineer, technician, etc.,
who sell their labour-power to those who own the means of pro-
duction. So, the relation to property in the means of production
engenders the objectively existing distinctions in people’s social
status, in their relations to each other in the society, and in the
nature of the social system as a whole.

Under private property in the means of production, most of
the participants in material social production, deprived of the
means of production, are in a state of dependence (non-economic
or economic) on a handful of those who own the natural resources,
plants, factories, banks, shops, and other means of production.

Mankind’s history has known several different forms of pri-
vate property: slaveholding, feudal and capitalist.

Social property in the means of production, on the contrary,
is collective appropriation by people of the means of production;

61

hence the equal relations of all those involved in production, of
all the society’s members to the material conditions of their la-
bour activity. Social forms of property include:

--group property, which existed in the epoch of the primitive
commune;

~—the whole people's (state) socialist property and cooperative
socialist property, which belongs to work collectives.

One single communist property in the means of production—
the property of the future—is the highest type of social pro-
perty.

So, the social and private forms of property are the two basic
forms of economic relations between people in the society. His-
torically, each of these two forms manifests itself in the specific
mode of the conjugation of producers with the means of pro-
duction that is peculiar to each particular epoch.

To understand its specifics, let us go over some of the pecu-
liarities stemming from the form of property in the means of pro-
duction and characterising production relations in each histori-
cal epoch.

The specifics of the slaveholding relations of production was
that the means of labour and the working individual (the slave)
were the property of one and the same owner. The means of
labour and the producer-slave were both seen by the slave-owner
as equal objects of property, or things.

Feudal production relations, based on property in big landed
estates, were relations under which the peasants were exploited by
the feudal lord, the owner of the land. The peasants were obliged
to work on the feudal lord’s land without remuneration or
to pay him regular taxes or rent.

Capitalist production relations are based on private property in
the basic means of production (enterprises, mines, etc.). Under
capitalism, where the producers are no longer personally depen-
dent, but are free, they are obliged to sell their labour-power in
order to obtain means of subsistence. The owner of the means of
production—the capitalist—buys their labour-power as a com-
modity and seeks to make the utmost use of it in order to extract
profit. So, on the one hand, the producer gains access to the
means of labour, by conjugating with which he joins in the pro-
cess of production. On the other hand, the employer is enabled
to pocket the surplus-value (profit), which labour-power is able

62

to produce over and above its own value and which the capi-
talist appropriates without remuneration,

The situation changes radically with the elimination of antago-
nistic production relations. ‘That is only possible under social
property in the means of production, which is characteristic of
communist production relations and their first, socialist phase.
As it lays the foundation of the essentially new type of production
relations, socialism eliminates man’s exploitation of man and the
conditions for the existence of social classes which live by appro-
priating the results of the labour of others. At the same time,
under socialist economic relations, the distinctions between the
two main toiling classes—the working class and the peasantry—
do not disappear altogether. They remain, for socialism cannot
overcome right away the existing distinctions between the two
forms of social property in the means of production (state and
cooperative). They will be gradually erased as developed social-
ism advances towards communism.

History shows that the development of production —of each
particular mode of production as a totality of its constituent pro-
ductive forces and relations of production—is determined by the
form of property. In its advance from the primitive-communal
to the slaveholding society, and then on to feudalism, capitalism
and eventually to communism, mankind’s history is a succession
of definite modes of production, which is based on a succession
of corresponding forms of property in the means of production.
Real history has also known many transitional forms of the or-
ganisation of economic life, combining vestiges of obsolete, out:
going forms of property (and corresponding modes of produc-
tion) with new, ascendant forms. The struggle between these re-
flects the dialectics of the succession of modes of production and
mankind’s social development.

The mode of production is always a concrete historical unity
of the productive forces and the relations of production. The
productive forces and the relations of production characterise any
mode of production as its two indissoluble aspects. It is not right,
therefore, to examine a mode of production solely on the strength
of its productive forces or its relations of production. An accen-
tuation of the development of the productive forces (with em-
phasis on technology and the predominant type of labour: man-
ual, machine or automated) tends to obscure the social content

63

of the production process. In that instance (“technological de-
terminism” conceptions), the succession of modes of production
is seen as a process determined solely by technical progress, by
the development of technology. On the other hand, an exagger-
ation of the role of production relations in the replacement of
one mode of production by another distorts the objective dialec-
tics of that process (thus, right-wing reformism uses that trick in
its efforts to prove the possibility of an evolutionary transition
from capitalism to socialism through a gradual restructuring of
capitalist production relations into socialist ones). Both the for-
mer and the latter conceptions are basically wrong.

It is simply impossible to restructure production relations with-
out changes in the society’s productive forces, which exert a defi-
nitive influence on these relations, just as it is impossible to go over
from one socio-economic system to another without a change of the
predominant mode of production. That objective dialectical de-
pendence of the relations of production on the development of
the productive forces is expressed in the law of correspondence
of the relations of production to the nature and development
level of the productive forces.

According to that law, production relations take shape and
change under the definitive influence of the society’s productive
forces. It can be used in analysing the mode of production of
any epoch, and shows the interaction of its constituent productive
forces and relations of production, an interaction which marks
the whole of mankind’s history. That is why it is a sociological
law, or a law which brings out the most general, objectively exist-
ing ties and relations, which do not depend either on people's
intentions or on their will and consciousness, and which deter-
mine the dependence of the relations of production on the soci-
ety’s productive forces.

How does that law operate?

As we get down to its examination, let us primarily note that
any mode of production develops in virtue of its own, intrinsic
causes on the basis of internal dialectics adequate to that mode
of production. That dialectics is determined by a combination of
numerous conditions and factors: satisfaction of the people’s vital
requirements and a growth of these requirements, changes in
the conditions of human existence, emergence of new material
and cultural requirements with the development and perfection

64

of the production process itself, since production, just as the so-
ciety, does not stand still.

Development of production is a law of social life. The society
changes with the development of production, with the replace-
ment of one mode of production by another and more perfect
one. he process starts with changes in the productive forces, pri-
marily the perfection of the instruments of production, whose
development serves to increase labour productivity.

But the development of the productive forces is not confined
to technical progress. As they perfect technical facilities in the
process of production, people also change their relations in the
production and distribution of material values. Thus, changes in
the productive forces give rise to definite new relations of pro-
duction, which correspond most of all to the level and nature
of the given productive forces.

Having arisen in the entrails of slavery, feudal property rela-
tions engendered a corresponding type of production relations,
based on the vassal’s personal dependence on the feudal lord.

Later on, capitalist industrial manufacture emerged and devel-
oped in the entrails of feudalism, with a corresponding devel-
opment of capitalist relations of production. As capitalism de-
velops, the socialisation and concentration of production inevit-
ably serve to deepen the contradictions between the rapidly de-
veloping productive forces and the ever more incongruous rela-
tions of production. That is the reason for the breakdown of
the existing and the formation of qualitatively new relations be-
tween people in the sphere of the production and distribution
of material values.

So, production relations emerge on the basis of definite pro-
ductive forces, exerting an active reciprocal influence on these
forces. Progressive production relations which correspond to the
given productive forces help to accelerate the development of
the productive forces themselves and thereby of material pro-
duction as a whole, raising its efficiency. Obsolete relations of
production, on the contrary, trammel and slow down the devel-
opment of the productive forces.

The correspondence of the relations of production to the le-
vel and nature of the productive forces is violated with the devel-
opment of any mode of production based on private property and
exploitation. The discrepancy there is caused by the contradic-

5—1807 65

tions between the relatively mobile productive forces and the re-
lations of production, which usually lag behind and obstruct the
development of the former. As the contradictions between them
deepen, it becomes necessary to restructure the old social organ-
isation, within whose framework these contradictions develop
into a conflict: hence the need for a social revolution, which de-
stroys the old relations of production and establishes new ones.

In summing up, let us note that:

~-production of the material values necessary for human life
is the starting point of the society, its functioning as an integral
social organism and its development;

the process of material production is a necessary condition
of interaction between people in the course of their joint, social
life;

‘that process is the crucial, fundamental prerequisite for a
perfection of the means of production, for a development of the
productive forces and the relations of production, through which
people not only act upon nature in the course of their joint la-
bour activity, but also change the conditions of their social life.

3. SOCIO-ECONOMIC FORMATION

Having examined the dialectics of the mode of production of
material values as the main, crucial factor in the society’s devel-
opment, let us now turn to the uniformities of the influence
exerted by the mode of production on social life.

In order to understand and explain any social phenomenon,
one should assume that each of these phenomena is engendered
by definite social requirements and serves to meet these require-
ments. And since the society in which people live and work, their
way of life are determined by the mode of production of mate-
rial values, the phenomena engendered by the society also ulti-
mately depend in their development on the mode of production
peculiar to that society. So, the mode of production is the so-
ciety’s material, economic basis; it determines the interaction of
the various spheres of the society as an integral social organism,
as a social system which changes and develops in accordance
with the objective prerequisites and conditions stemming from
the specific features of the mode of production itself.

66

Marx proved that the key to understanding the society as a
unity of the various aspects of its economic, social and cultural
life lies in an analysis of the origination and development of the
mode of production of material values and of the production re-
lations connected with it, which make up the society's economic
structure (basis), above which there rises a whole system of ideo-
logical relations, organisations and institutions (superstructure).

The totality of relations forming the society's basis and super-
structure was designated by Marx as “socio-economic formation”,
He used the term “formation” not only to designate the unity
of the relations constituting the society, but also to single out
definite modes of production and successive historical epochs,
types of society, definite stages of social development.

Marx’s concept of “socio-economic formation” was the key
to a scientific explanation of the unity of the various aspects of
social life. At the same time, it made it possible to explain the
continuity of the socio-historical process, its law-governed pro-
gressive nature. Together with the other categories and concepts
of Marxist social theory, the concept of “socio-economic forma-
tion” is an instrument in the scientific analysis of the motive
forces of human history.

So, let us give a definition of the socio-economic formation and
examine the content of its initial components.

Socio-economic formation is a definite type of Society; it is an
integral social system which functions and develops in accord-
ance with its intrinsic, specific laws, on the basis of the mode of
production that exists in the given society.

Historically conditioned relations of production constitute the
economic basis of each formation. The totality of these relations,
ie., the various forms of property, the relations between people
in the process of production stemming from these, and also the
forms of exchange, distribution and consumption of the means
of subsistence, constitutes the economic structure of the society,
its basis. Each society has its own type of basis, which is deter-
mined by the type of production relations, and these, for their
part, depend on the state of the society’s productive forces.

The economic basis arises from the society’s definite material
conditions, from its productive forces. 1ts importance in the life
of the society is hard to overestimate: it exerts a decisive influ-
ence on the organisation of production, and also on the distribu-

5° 67

tion of material values. Simultaneously, the basis provides
a real foundation for the society’s ideological superstructure.

The superstructure is the totality of the legal, political, philo-
sophical, religious, ethical, aesthetic and other views existing in
a given society and the relations, organisations and institutions
corresponding to these views.

These social relations, ideas and institutions arise from the so-
clety’s economic basis, so that the superstructure as a whole is
determined by that basis, by the initial economic relations of
the society, relations which exist in the sphere of material social
production. Consequently, the society’s complexion, its spiritual
life, its politics, morality, law, etc., primarily depend on the na-
ture of the social relations that constitute the society’s economic
structure, or its basis.

The dialectics of the basis and superstructure. The predomi-
nant political, legal, religious, philosophical, ethical and aesthetic
views (and also the relations connected with these and the institu-
tions which regulate these relations) depend on the type of the
society’s economic basis. If the economic basis hinges on antago-
nistic production relations, which enable the social classes that
own the means of production to exploit the other, toiling classes
and appropriate the results of their labour, the ideological insti-
tutions and the views themselves (and so the superstructural re-
lations as a whole) will also in one form or another reflect the
contradictions of the basis.

The economic, political and spiritual life of any antagonistic
socio-economic formation (be it slavery, feudalism or capital-
ism) shows how the basis influences the superstructure.

Let us examine some manifestations of that influence.

Under slavery (as in Ancient Greece or Rome), the society's
division into two basic antagonistic classes—-the class of slaves
and the class of slave-owners—entailed a struggle between the
interests of these classes in such spheres of life as ideology, poli-
tics, religion, philosophy, poetry and art. Ancient philosophy
and literature testify to a confrontation and struggle between the
ideological views of the various social groups and classes of that
epoch, whose interests clashed in the economic, political, social
and other spheres.

Under feudalism, which came to replace the slaveholding sys-
tem and under which the society was divided into the basic

68

classes of landowners (feudal lords, landlords) and _ peasants,
who were in bondage to the former and were engaged in small-
scale individual farming on the land of the feudal lords, the
predominant economic relations were reflected in the sway of
religious ideology, conservative and patriarchal views in such areas
as ethics, collective psychology and art, in the political ideology
of nationalism, traditionalism, etc. The views prevailing under
feudalism survive in vestigial form even after that socio-econom-
ic formation gives way to the capitalist formation, with its own
economic structure, its own economic and ideological relations.

In the capitalist society, vestiges of feudalism survive primarily
because capitalism inherits some of the feudal economic institu-
tions and relations (connected with Jatifundia, the labour-rent sys-
tem, metayage, etc.). These vestiges are still in evidence in many
developing countries, which have only recently taken the road
of independent economic and political development. Survivals of
feudalism are also to be found in some economically developed
countries of Europe (Spain, Portugal, Italy), and Latin America.

Under capitalism, the last antagonistic socio-economic forma-
tion, based on private property in the means of production, on
the exploitation of wage-labour (industrial and agricultural work-
ers, employees, etc.) by the class of capitalists, the owners of the
means of production, the basic contradiction manifests itself as
a contradiction between the social character of production and
the private-capitalist form of appropriation, and is expressed in
recurrent economic crises and chronic unemployment.

The relations of the economic basis are shot through with
sharp class antagonisms between labour (those who work) and
capital (those who appropriate the results of that work). Concen-
tration of capital, the rule of the monopolies and the financial
oligarchy in economic life, intensifying reaction in politics, overtly
anti-popular, anti-democratic tendencies in ideology and cultural
life—such is the real influence of the basis on the superstructure
under capitalism. Doing its utmost to stunt the progressive shoots
in ideology, politics and culture, the ruling elite of the capitalist
society encourages openly decadent views and conceptions. By
seeking to substantiate the possibility of thermonuclear war, en-
dorsing international terrorism, sponsoring extremist right-wing
movements, and installing obedient political regimes with the
help of armed force, the ruling classes of the USA and other

69

leading capitalist states hope to protect the vital economic in-
terests of the capitalists, and to prolong the existence of the poli-
tical system which is doomed by history.

Under soctalism-—the first phase of the communist socio-eco-
nomic formation, a new type of formation—socialist superstructu-
ral relations and institutions (the state, the political organisations
of the working people led by their communist parties) help to
accelerate the development of material production, to optimise
all the units of the national economic mechanism, to develop the
scientific and technical creativity of the masses and, on that ba-
sis, steadily to raise the people’s living standards and meet the
material and spiritual requirements of each member of the so-
ciety to an ever fuller extent.

So, the interconnection between the basis and the superstruc-
ture is a dialectical one. Arising from a definite basis, the cor-
responding superstructure helps to maintain and strengthen the
economic domination of the social forces that own the means of
production, something which results in their domination in the
sphere of nonmaterial production (ideology, politics, religion,
morality, and various spheres of the production of spiritual and
cultural values). While reflecting the basis, the superstructure
also registers its contradictions. In antagonistic formations (as
under capitalism), that is reflected in the contradictions between
the state and the revolutionary mood of the masses, in the struggle
between the ideologies of different classes, in the different and
sometimes antithetical political platforms of various parties, etc.

Changes in the economic basis (either a deepening or a resolu-
tion of its contradictions) inevitably entail changes in diverse
superstructural relations and institutions. The break-up of obso-
lete production relations and a destruction of the related form of
property in the means of production (as in the period of transi-
tion from capitalism to socialism), signifies a break-up of the
economic and social system as a whole. that is, a change of the
socio-economic formation, and amounts to a radical revolution
in the superstructure.

In elaborating that question. the founders of Marxist social
theory showed that a transformation of the society’s system of
superstructural relations and institutions takes time and calls for
definite conditions. In the conditions of the transition period,
when a new type of economic structure, a new basis takes shape,

70

there also arises a political superstructure which corresponds to
these conditions. It is necessary to complete the political. social
and cultural transformations and to put down the resistance of
the overthrown ruling classes. During the period of transition
from capitalism to socialism. such a historically necessary form
of the working masses’ political power is the state of the dictator-
ship of the proletariat (a concept to be examined later on). Such
a state is a crucial and necessary condition for the gradual trans-
formation of the whole superstructure inherited from the past
in accordance with the new economic basis.

The content of the political and ideological superstructure
depends on the economic basis and is determined by it. But does
this mean that the superstructure is “tied” to its economic basis
and cannot function independently? Not at all. The superstruc-
ture is relatively independent with regard to its economic basis,
which is yet another manifestation of the dialectical nature of
that dependence.

Many non-Marxist philosophers and sociologists still present
Marxist social theory as an “excessively monistic” doctrine, which
allegedly seeks to explain the society through primitive econom-
ic interpretation (with an exaggeration of the role of the basis)
and to substantiate “economic determinism” in a schematic way,
so “oversimplifying’ the complicated picture of social processes
going forward in the economic. political. cultural and other
spheres of social life in our day.’

Such views are totally unwarranted. They are based on biased
and one-sided notions about Marxist social theory, on a_ neo-
Kantian critique of Marxism. Distorting the actual content of the
Marxist doctrine. these views in effect deny the need for a dia-
lectical approach to studying the society as a unity of the various
aspects of its life and reject the consistently materialist explana-
tion of the interaction between the society’s basis and superstruc-
ture.

Such views were already exposed by the founders of Marxist
social theory. In a letter to W. Borgius, Engels wrote that histor-
ical materialism had never claimed that “the economic situation
is cause, and solely active, whereas everything else is only passive

‘ See, for instance, Rigoberto Lanz, Afarxismo y sociologia, Parauna
critica de la sociologia marxista. Fontanamara, Barcelona, 1981.

71

effect. On the contrary, interaction takes place on the basis of
economic necessity, which ultimately always asserts itself”.?

The basis affects the superstructure through a ramified system
of intermediate links which exist between the economy and the
various forms of ideology, through the connection between the
economic and political interests of people belonging to definite
social classes. After all, it is none other than people who trans-
form the economic relations of the basis, who carry out revolutions,
so also transforming the superstructure. Consequently, the latter's
dependence on changes in the basis cannot be reduced solely to
economic causes: the interaction between the various elements
of the superstructure itself often entails effects which are not
conditioned by the economic basis.

So, the superstructure is an active force which influences di-
verse processes and phenomena in the society, including its econ-
omic basis, a force which protects and strengthens the economic
relations existing on that basis, and which helps to perfect and
develop them.

The growing role of the superstructure in countries with dif-
ferent economic and political systems is due to different causes.

Under capitalism, the propertied ruling classes seek to retain
their predominant economic position, invigorating their ideolog-
ical and political influence on the working masses, on their
consciousness, and aiming either to slow down or to “neutral-
ise” the development of the anti-imperialist forces, the national
liberation and working-class movement, for these forces pose a
real threat to the existence of capitalism, based on the exploita-
tion of the rightless working millions.

Under socialism, on the contrary, the active role of the super-
structure with regard to the basis is a constructive factor in
the transformation of the society and its all-round development
in the interests of the working masses, who take an active part
in running production and who shape the new social relations.

By strengthening the socialist basis, the superstructure under
socialism helps to build the new society. Socialism by its very
nature is a form of the organisation of social life which implies
each individual’s ever broader and conscious involvement in ad-
~* “Engels to W. Borgius in Breslau, January 25. 1894", in: Karl

Marx, Frederick Engels, Selected Correspondence, Progress Publishers,
Moscow, 1975, p. 442.

72

eer ee Sr eS

SO oe

ministration and management, in perfecting and developing pro-
duction. It is no longer the sway of the capitalist market, but
balanced use of the potentialities inherent in the socialist econo-
my that creates the necessary prerequisites for a decisive influence
of the socialist superstructure on the basis.

The activity of the superstructure under socialism is just as
distinct from the activity of the capitalist superstructure (or any
other connected with antagonistic formations) as the economic re-
lations of the basis under socialism are distinct from those of any
other social system.

In summing up the above, particularly the question of the
basis and superstructure as the two main structural elements of
any formation, let us note that these two elements not only
characterise each socio-economic formation, but also distinguish |
one from another. It is precisely the basis and the superstruc-
ture that make it possible to see the peculiarity of a socio-eco-
nomic formation as an independent social organism and to un-
derstand the internal laws of its progressive development.

At the same time, the socio-economic formation includes a
whole range of other entities (historical forms of human com-
munity, the state, etc.), the most important of which we shall
consider in subsequent sections.

The succession of socio-economic formations and the society’s
development. By showing the inherent unity of social life and
bringing out its material foundations, Marxism put an end to
the various idealistic and metaphysical views on the problem of
social development which had prevailed in the historical and
social sciences up to the emergence of the materialist understand-
ing of history.

The view of society as a concrete historical society at a defi-

nite stage of its historical development became possible when it
came to be seen as a developing unity of the diverse aspects and
relations of joint human life, or as a socio-economic formation.
Marx and Engels first realised that the peculiarity of any par-
ticular type of society and the laws of its change and develop-
ment should be explained on the strictly scientific foundation of
an all-round historico-materialist analysis of the diversity of so-
cial phenomena. That enabled them to single out the recurrent
and essential elements in the society’s development, to trace the
succession of formations as a natural-historical process.

73

The concept of socio-economic formations enabled the found-
ers of historical materialism to elaborate a consistently scientific
periodisation of the succession of epochs in mankind's social de-
velopment. ‘These successive epochs of world history. as described
above, include the (1) primitive-communal. (2) slaveholding.
(3\feudal, (4) capitalist and (5) communist socio-economic for-
mations.

The conception of the society’s development as a succession
of formations for the first time enabled Marx and Engels to see
history as one process of mankind's advance from lower to higher
stages, to establish the continuity of that process.

Historical materialism examines the continuity in the society’s
development on the strength of the objective prerequisites and
conditions of that development, inherent in the definite sequence
of definite modes of production. While connecting the succession
of socio-economic formations with a succession of the modes of
production that predominate in each epoch, Marxism does not
deny the progressive nature of the society’s historical develop-
ment within the framework of each formation. Nor does it re-
duce its explanation of history to any “monocausal” schemes or
“economic determinism”, as non-Marxist philosophers and sociol-
ogists often allege. Its harmonious and perfectly lucid explana-
tion of the historical process as a succession of formations has
nothing to do with idealistic interpretations of history, which are
far from an adequate comprehension of the actual processes un-
folding in the society’s life and its development.

So, one could note that:

socio-economic formations are historically definite types of
society;

the formation is a unity of the basis and the superstructure;

a many-sided dialectical interconnection exists between the
material economic relations constituting the basis and the ideo-
logical relations constituting the superstructure;

the society's complexion is primarily determined by the
character of the relations of its economic basis;

correspondence of the superstructure to the given basis is
a uniformity of the interaction between the basis and_ the
superstructure;

however, that does not rule out a relative independence of
the ideological and political institutions and relations rising

74

above the given basis and constituting the superstructure of each
historically concrete type of society;

through diverse links which mediate the interaction between
the economy. on the one hand. and ideology. politics and spiritu-
al life, on the other, the superstructure can exert an active
influence on the basis, and through it on the development of the
society as a whole, either accelerating or holding back its pro-
gress;

the society's advance from lower to higher stages of
development is based on a succession of socio-economic forma-
tions.

4. HISTORY: DIVERSITY AND UNITY

Historical materialism traces the succession of socio-economic
formations as a general law-governed tendency in mankind’s de-
velopment: from one stage to another, in the unity and integrity
of that process, without ruling out peculiarities and specific fea-
tures in the development of individual peoples, countries and
continents.

The historical development of each country has its own speci-
fics, which are primarily due to differing economic, political,
social and cultural levels, and these, in turn, result from the un-
evenness of the development process as a whole.

Different countries and peoples can enter one and the same
socio-economic formation under far from similar conditions and
at different points in time. Although the history of all countries
and peoples without exception has always developed and contin-
ues to develop as a transition from lower to higher social stages,
the transition of each of these countries and peoples has its
own specific features. In the course of historical development,
some peoples went over from the tribal system to the slavehold-
ing system, others (Germanic and Slavic tribes) bypassed the lat-
ter and went over straight to feudalism; and still others (like
the Mongolian People’s Republic and some Central Asian peo-
ples on the territory of the Soviet Union) bypassed capitalism and
went over from age-old semi-feudal structures to building the
foundations of socialism. They were enabled to do so by the
support and assistance they received from other, more developed
neighbouring peoples. primarily the peoples of Soviet Russia.

The last few decades of the 20th century have seen many

75

countries and peoples go over from one economic and social set-
up to another and more progressive one. The Great October
Socialist Revolution in Russia marked the beginning of the end
of capitalism as a world socio-economic system, giving a power-
ful impulse to the social development of different countries and
peoples. After the Second World War, many Asian, African and
Latin American countries and peoples rose to freedom in the
course of a powerful national liberation movement and took the
road of independent political and economic development. ‘The
newly free countries differ markedly both in economic devel-
opment levels and in national and cultural traditions, ethnic
structures, etc. For many of them, the crucial problem now is
to resolve the economic and social contradictions inherited from
the past, eliminate the age-old backwardness and dependence,
root out the aftermath of colonialism, etc.

Ever more countries are choosing the road of socialist construc-
tion. They are united by a resolve to end their semi-colonial
dependence on the imperialist Western powers, by their efforts
to establish an independent economic basis, to accelerate devel-
opment of those branches of the economy which are particular-
ly important in strengthening the political and economic inde-
pendence of the young national states in the international arena,
and to transform the superstructure in accordance with the need
for rapid growth, for a democratisation of political and social
life, etc.

The development of the human society as a succession of for-
mations is an integral and progressive process. In analysing that
process, we should not, therefore, overlook those of its aspects
which pave the way for a change of formation “from within”,
as the economic and social foundations of each formation take
shape, grow, mature and become obsolete.

In order to understand the inner uniformities of that progres-
sive process, let us take a closer Jook at the historical transi-
tion from one socio-economic formation to another.

From the primitive-communal to the slaveholding society. The
emergence of the primitive-communal system and its gradual
evolvement towards slavery lasted tens of thousands of years. In
that period, man himself was formed in the course of labour
activity (as he gathered fruit, hunted, fished, made and _perfect-
ed primitive tools). The social form of property in the means of

76

production and corresponding production relations developed at
that time. ‘These were relations of mutual assistance, for men had
to withstand the forces of nature, which were much more power-
ful than man himself with his primitive instruments of produc-
tion.

As labour productivity increased with the perfection of tools
and with the accumulation of human production experience,
the number of products gradually increased, cropping and cattle-
breeding branched out into separate types of production activity
(the first major social division of labour), later on to be followed
by the handicrafts (clothes-making, tool-making, etc.).

With the development of product exchange, the gentile com-
mune disintegrated into separate families, which became the own-
ers of the means of production. The increase in the amount of
products entailed their unequal distribution and appropriation,
and the society began to stratify and differentiate, as a result of
which some people exploited the labour of others and enriched
themselves at their expense. Since exchange developed together
with the growth of production, economic and social inequality
tended to deepen. The emergence of the classes of slaves and
slave-owners with their antithetical interests meant a polarisation
of the ancient society. So, the primitive-communal society gave
way to slavery.

From the slaveholding to the feudal society. Under the slave-
holding formation, the development of the productive forces was
no longer solely connected with a perfection of tools, but also
with a highly intensive use of cheap manual slave labour. ‘The
development of agriculture, mining, metallurgy, building and the
handicrafts became possible owing to slave labour. Just as the
slaves themselves, their labour was the property of the slave-
owner, who owned the means of production. The slave received
from his master the barest minimum of what was necessary to
live and toil.

The relations of production under slavery were those of total
subjugation of some people by others, with ruthless exploitation
of the utterly rightless slaves by their masters. These relations
were maintained and protected by the superstructure of the slave-
holding society as represented by the slaveholding state with
its repressive machine (its legal system, army, etc.), a superstruc-
ture which emerged from the economic basis to defend the in-

77

terests of the propertied class and its property. The develop-
ment of the productive forces in that epoch made it necessary to
raise labour productivity, but an objective obstacle there was
the totally subordinate position of the slaves, who were the main
productive force of the ancient society, but who had no stake
in developing production.

The contradictions between the productive forces and the rela-
tions of production under slavery deepened with the ever wors-
ening economic condition of the slaves. Slave uprisings rocked
the foundations of the slaveholding state. The wars waged by
the latter in order to maintain and multiply the wealth of its
rulers, as well as the slave uprisings, ultimately undermined the
very foundation of the slaveholding system. Its weakening and
disintegration entailed the emergence of new economic. struc-
tures, a new social organisation which entrenched the predomi-
nant position of the landowner, or the feudal lord, and the de-
pendent position of the peasant, or the serf, who worked for his
master.

The production relations of the new, feudal society were based
on the feudal lord’s total property in land and _ his partial
property in the peasant, who was obliged to do labour service
and pay duties, to work for his master, although he was also
able to work for himself. The peasant had his own personal hou-
sehold and was interested in improving the methods of running
it. The development of production, the handicrafts and trade was
directly connected with the personal stake of those who did the
actual work. New technical discoveries and inventions, the growth
of the cities as the main centres of the handicrafts and trade
helped to deepen the division of labour in the feudal society.

The whole feudal superstructure that stemmed from the eco-
nomic basis of that society defended the private property of the
landowners and the relations of production based on that form
of property. In the feudal epoch, the state machine was fortified,
the army swelled, and the church became the predominant ideo-
logical force, which fully controlled the society’s spiritual life,
the development of the sciences and education, and which de-
fended and sustained the power of the propertied classes, and
sanctified the monarchy.

The technical innovations and great geographical discoveries
of the 15th and 16th centuries (the discovery of the sea route

78

to India, of the American continent, etc.) helped to develop the
productive forces of the feudal society, which were in ever greater
contradiction with the obviously lagging relations of produc-
tion, especially in view of the development of manufactory pro-
duction. ‘The formation of an international market in that epoch
also meant greater demand for various goods, which the handi-
crafts were no longer able to meet. By using more labourers and
new technology, the manufactory sharply increased productivity
and led to broader division of labour, With the emergence of
manufactories, the number of labourers employed at these con-
siderably increased. The new type of industrial production served
to create a new social organisation, as two new and opposite
classes began to take shape within the entrails of the feudal so-
ciety: the bourgeoisie, which owned the means of production,
and the proletariat, which sold its muscle-power, its labour-
power to the former.

From the feudal to the capitalist society. Natural farming and
the fact that the serf was bound to the land increasingly prevent-
ed the formation of a market of Jabour-power that was neces-
sary to develop manufactory production. The productive forces
of the feudal society clashed with the obsolete production rela-
tions. The new type of production necessitated a fundamental
break-up of these relations.

As masses of peasants were ruined and the condition of the
lower urban strata sharply deteriorated, they increasingly rose
up against their oppressors. The bourgeoisie made use of that
discontent and channelled it along lines that suited its own pur-
poses. The transition from feudalism to the new capitalist for-
mation was marked by numerous bourgeois revolutions, which
undermined the economic, political and social organisation of
feudalism at the very root. So, feudalism gradually gave way to
capitalism.

The assertion of capitalism gave an unprecedented impulse
to the development of the productive forces and accelerated his-
torical development. Capitalism put a resolute end to the isolat-
ed economic and social life of the various peoples, states and
continents. Seclusion and provincialism gave way to free ex-
change, to one global economic system and a world market.

Handicraft workshops and manufactories were replaced by
large-scale machine production: gigantic plants, factories and

79

mines. Transport and the communications developed at a rapicl
pace. Millions of people were leaving their homes in search of a
livelihood and moving to the industrial centres to swell the ranks
of the proletarians.

The epoch of the rise and development of capitalist produc-
tion changed the lives of the people to a greater extent than all
the earlier epochs taken together.

But right from the very beginning, economic and social devel-
opment under capitalism was marked by acute contradictions.
On the one hand, there was socialisation of production, and on
the other, there was private bourgeois property in the means of
production and the related form of appropriation by the proper-
ty owner (the capitalist) of the surplus-value, i.e., the unpaid
labour of the workers. Concentration and centralisation of cap-
italist production, its rapid development went hand in hand with
private competition, anarchy, overproduction and economic crises,
and the relative freedom of the production worker, or the
proletarian (freedom to sell his labour-power)—with his total
economic dependence on the capitalist class, on the bourgeoisie,
and his lack of social rights.

The production relations and the economic basic of the bour-
geois society, marked by an antagonism between labour and cap-
ital, engendered a corresponding superstructure. The state, the
army, the legal, ideological and political institutions of the bour-
geois society, its philosophy, art, ethics and religion have always
protected and continue to protect the interests of the propertied
classes, asserting that private property is eternal and that the
spirit of profit-making and capitalist exploitation is natural to
man.

At the same time, one will also find in that society, in contrast
to its official ideology of inequality and oppression, the shoots
of a new world outlook, the outlook of the working class, which
begins to understand the peculiarities of its economic and social
position and which rises up in active struggle for its vital rights.

The drive for profit, which was the main incentive of capi-
talist progress, led to a rapid growth of the capitalist society’s
productive forces. But the drive for profit also led to the deepest
contradiction of the capitalist mode of production: the contradic-
tion between the social character of the production process itself
and the private-capitalist form of appropriation, between the

80

growth potential of the productive forces and the production re-
lations which obstruct that growth. By the end of the past cen-
tury, capitalism had already gone through a number of stages
and entered its highest and final stage: imperialism. Free com-
petition gave way to domination by the monopolies, or big as-
sociations of capitalists which control the production and mar-
keting of goods and dictate market prices, so ensuring maximum
profits.

The monopoly stage of capitalism marks a further deepening
of its basic contradictions and greater exploitation of the work-
ing people, both at home and in the dependent countries, In
their drive for profit, the capitalist powers colonise the world,
divide it into spheres of economic and political domination or
influence, unleash wars, spark off numerous local conflicts, im-
pose reactionary regimes on other peoples, spiral the arms race,
and fan the war hysteria.

‘The imperialist circles and their ideologues have been doing
their utmost to distract the working masses from the contradic-
tions of daily life under capitalism, from its problems engendered
by mass unemployment, continued poverty, rightlessness, na-
tional and social inequality, growing crime and violence, from
the struggle for their vital rights.

These contradictions, however, can never be resolved through
the demagogic promises of bourgeois politicians who call for
“renewal” and reform, for the creation of a “fairer” social sys-
tem. The class struggle between the forces of labour and capi-
tal inevitably leads to a resolution of these contradictions through
socialist revolution, whose victory puts an end to capitalism as a
social system and to the obsolete social relations.

A socialist revolution creates the initial prerequisites for the
emergence of a qualitatively new type of society, which destroys
private property in the means of production together with eco-
nomic and social inequality, oppression, and man’s exploitation
of man.

So, a socialist revolution amounts to a transition from the
antagonistic to the non-antagonistic type of social system.

Socialism as the first phase of the communist socio-economic
formation. The socialist society is fundamentally different from
the capitalist or any other society based on private property in
the means of production, primarily in that it is free from such

6—1807 81

relations between people as exploitation, dependence and _ eco-
nomic domination, which stem from private property. Socialism
engenders social property in the means of production. The ob-
jective prerequisites for it are “prepared” by capitalism itself,
which creates big industry, concentrates control over economic
life in the hands of the monopolies, makes it possible to use
scientific and technical achievements in production, and social-
ises production.

Socialism, however, does not “stem” directly from capitalism.
It emerges gradually, out of the radical revolutionary transfor-
mations in the economic basis and superstructure inherited from
the old society. ‘he period during which the old economic and
social structures are transformed into new ones is called the pe-
riod of transition from capitalism to socialism. It is a period of
the revolutionary transformation of the capitalist society into a
socialist one. It starts with the winning of political power by
the working class and ends with the laying of the foundations
of socialism.

Why is a transition period necessary?

Primarily because the new society is essentially antithetical to
the old one: it does not emerge of its own accord, within the
entrails of the capitalist system of exploitation, Socialism asserts
itself only with the establishment of working-class power, when
that power is used for the socialist reconstruction of the society
(to eliminate the domination of private property relations in ma-
terial production, to establish social property in the means of
production and socialist social relations, and to strengthen these
relations in transforming economic, political and cultural life).

The forms of such reconstruction can be highly diverse, de-
pending on the concrete historical conditions of individual coun-
tries. In the USSR, for instance, the specifics of the transforma-
tions carried out in the transition period were determined not
only by the country’s technico-economic backwardness inherit-
ed from tsarist Russia, but also to a considerable extent by the
capitalist surrounding and the fierce resistance of the overthrown
classes, the capitalists and the landowners. In other social-
ist countries, these transformations took place or are still under
way in much more favourable historical conditions. There is now
a powerful world socialist system and multifaceted experience in
laying the foundations of socialism in different historical condi-

82

tions, primarily the experience of the USSR. Any country taking
the road of socialist transformations, however distant from the
USSR, can always rely on its selfless and friendly support and
assistance.

Under socialism, the development of production is wholly
geared to meet the people’s growing needs to the fullest possible
extent and to perfect the socialist social relations. ‘fhe pro-
ductive forces under socialism develop in close dialectical unity
with the relations of production. These relations, as we have al-
ready emphasised, are based on socialist social property in the
means of production. These are relations of mutual assistance
and equitable fraternal cooperation between people.

Vhe right to work under socialism is not only proclaimed but
is guaranteed for all. Every individual regards his work and its
results as a source of accelerating the social transformations and
improving various aspects of social life. The free labour of mil-
lions of people is their constructive, creative activity aimed at
self-realisation, at bringing out the abilities of each member of
the society. The individual’s new attitude to work is one of the
main achievements of socialism.

Production relations under socialism are being perfected in a
steady and balanced way. Any working individual is able to take
part in running production, and that is a reflection of the truly
democratic nature of the new society.

‘The socialist society’s superstructure also undergoes profound
qualitative transformations. ‘The world outlook and the revolu-
tionary theory of the working class and its vanguard (the party)
first emerge under capitalism. With the formation of the new
and progressive socialist basis, the socialist superstructure, that
is, the totality of its constituent ideological, political and other
relations and institutions (primarily the socialist state, various
political organisations led by the ruling communist party, the
trade unions, cultural, educational and other bodies), tends to
become monolithic and effectual.

With regard to its basis, the socialist superstructure performs
diverse functions connected with the management of social pro-
duction, its steady perfection, and the task of ensuring and pro-
tecting the interests of all the toiling classes. As they advance
along the road of peace and progress towards a common goal,
the friendly classes of the socialist society pool their efforts in

ef 83

tackling the urgent tasks of consolidating their gains and making
further headway in economic and cultural construction.

The fact that the USSR entered the stage of developed so-
cialism indicates profound transformations in the economy and
the whole system of social relations. The Soviet Union is. still
at the beginning of the historically protracted stage of developed
socialism, but has already scored great successes in every {teld.
Relying on the advantages of the new social system, it has a
powerful and versatile economy and highly skilled workers, spe-
cialists and researchers.

Profound changes have taken place in social life. A guaran-
teed right to work and payment for work, the society’s concern
for the working man throughout his entire life, broad access to
spiritual culture, respect for the dignity and rights of the individ-
ual, and the working peoples ever broader involvement in
running the socialist society are among the inalienable features
of the socialist way of life.

At the same time, life itself dictates the need for further
changes and transformations. In blazing a trail to communism,
the fairest social system in history, as in any new endeavour, the
society is bound to face certain difficulties, which can be overcome
with the help of Marxism-Leninism, the dialectico-materialist
world outlook. The society of real socialism keeps striving for
accelerating economic and social development, for a scientific
and technical renewal of production, seeks to attain the highest
world level of labour productivity, to perfect social, primarily
economic relations, to effect deep-going changes in the material
and spiritual conditions of human life, to invigorate the whole
system of political and social institutions, and to deepen socialist
democracy, self-government by the people.

The improvement of socialism in the USSR is aimed at achiev-
ing, in a historical perspective, of the second phase of the com-
munist socio-economic formation-—communism, The classless
communist society is to perform a great historical task: once and
for all, it is to free every single individual, all people on the
Earth from any form of oppression, social inequality and exploi-
tation, from the threat of war on the planet. Once it attains the
highest level of material production and spiritual culture, the
communist society will create all the conditions for the fullest
and all-round development of the human individual; it will be-

84

come the first society of real humanism in mankind’s Jong his-
tory.

The present epoch, whose content is mankind’s transition from
capitalism to socialism, marks a step forward along the road to
a classless communist society.

Marxist theory shows the diversity and unity of the historical
process and explains its objective prerequisites in accordance
with the conditions of economic, political and cultural develop-
ment that characterise the level attained by each society within
the framework of this or that formation.

History is seen as a succession of socio-economic formations:
primitive-communal, slaveholding, feudal and capitalist. The
latter the last antagonistic formation—inevitably gives way to
the communist formation.

Socialism is the first phase of the communist social system.
Under socialism, the crucial prerequisites are created for a grad-
ual transition to a communist society.

The transition from socialism to communism is a protracted
historical process, which implies a perfection of all the aspects
and relations of the new society.

5. THE MOTIVE FORCES OF HISTORY

Having determined that the development of the human society
is a natural-historical process, a succession of socio-economic for-
mations, let us now turn to the motive forces of social develop-
ment.

That question is studied by the philosophy of history, a field
of philosophy which seeks to explain the laws of history and to
comprehend the process of historical cognition.

Pre-Marxist philosophy of history largely confined itself to es-
sentially idealistic conceptions of the historical process. Since the
Middle Ages, Christian philosophy of history was dominated by
providentialism, or the view that a god (deity, providence) is
the chief motive force of history, while man merely executes the
supreme will,

In contrast to these theologico-religious notions, secular philos-
ophy of history (starting from Aristotle to Abd-al-Rahman ijbn-
Nhaldun. Giovanni Battista Vico. Charles Fourier and others)
developed so-called theories of historical cycles, which explained
social development by asserting a definite “order”, a “natural re-

85

currence” in the life cycle of various cultures and civilisations, as
they rise, reach their peak and decline.

In contrast to these theories, Hegel and the followers of his
idealist philosophy emphasised the unity and continuity of his-
tory, seeing the motive force of history in the development of a
world reason, infinite and eternal.

In the 19th century, these conceptions gave way to evolution-
ism, whose advocates, like Herbert Spencer regarded social de-
velopment as a process of ceaseless growth, maturation and “per-
fection”, similar to the processes unfolding in a biological or-
ganism.

Later on, bourgeois philosophy of history came up with other
theories. One of their characteristic features was that none of
them connected in any meaningful way the process of social de-
velopment with the practical material-production activity of man
himself or saw that activity as the point of departure for the
historical changes in the society.

Marx and Engels showed the unsoundness of these views in
their first two major works, The Holy Family and The German
Ideology, in which they gave a full scientific refutation of the
various idealistic views of history. They resolutely rejected those
views of history which ignored the obvious fact that men them-
selves make their own history, that they are its architects. Marx
and Engels showed that the socio-historical process is being ef-
fected by people themselves, who create material values in the
course of their daily work. simultaneously perfecting the very pro-
cess of production, developing the society’s productive forces.
and changing the relations of production. They pointed out that
people do not make their history arbitrarily, but proceed in their
activity from the objectively existing conditions, and that the
results of the activity of each preceding generation are passed on
to subsequent generations on the basis of a definite level of
material production attained in the preceding epoch. The soci-
ety’s development was thus presented as a natural-historical pro-
cess unfolding in accordance with definite historical laws, a pro-
cess whose invariable source and driving power is the multifac-
eted day-to-day constructive activity of millions of working
people. of the working masses. of the entire people.

The people: the concept defined. So. the working masses, the
people as a whole are the main motive force of history. some-

86

thing that is hard to deny. In accepting that conclusion, how-
ever, one is bound to ask a number of inevitable questions.

First, what is “the people” as a concept?

Second, how does the leading role of the popular masses in
history manifest itself?

Third, how do the popular masses influence the course of his-
tory?

Fourth, what is the correlation between mass action and the
activities of individuals?

Fifth, what is the latter's role in history?

Marxist social theory answers each of these questions.

A great deal has been written about the role of the masses
in social development. in history. There are numerous works on
the historical action of the masses, including the so-called revolt of
the masses (as the phenomenon was called by José Ortega y Gasset
in his book La Rebelion de las Masas, published in 1930), the
problems of the ‘“‘mass society” and present-day capitalist “mass
culture”. In dealing with these problems, non-Marxist authors
confine themselves to the general abstract concepts of “the peo-
ple” and “the masses”, without specifying their content. Many
ideologues and theoreticians belonging to diverse nationalist
trends (including openly right-wing, fascist-minded ones) appeal
to the “national spirit” and the “national mentality”, to the na-
tion's “vital interests”. etc. Present-day populism (both right and
“left”) also addresses “the people”, the popular “masses”. Many
conservative-oriented theories of Catholicism and traditionalism.
liberal elitist conceptions. etc.. have also turned to the problems
of leadership, of governing “the masses”. There is a distinct con-
nection between the attitude to the people. to the masses and
the content of these concepts in the demagogic political and so-
cial doctrines expounded by the theorists of conservatism, nation-
alism, and anti-popular totalitarian regimes.

In exposing these doctrines and giving its own explanation of
history and its motive forces, historical materialism rejects any
attempts to play down the role of the masses in the process of
social development.

A study of world history presents a vivid picture of changing
epochs, wars and revolutions. of the rise and fall of states, cultures
and whole civilisations. History has known many outstanding
individuals, who have left their imprint on the events of the past.

87

Pre-Marxist historiography and philosophy often correlated the
course of history solely with the names of military leaders. kings
and emperors, forgetting that behind these names stands the real.
though anonymous force of historical progress—the people, all
those who contribute to the development of production by their
daily labour, their skills and experience, who create material and
spiritual values and pass them on from generation to genera-
tion, who revive, cherish and keep renewing the cultural legacy,
experience. customs and traditions of the past.

Although the idealistic conceptions of history could not bring
out that real force (which is due, in particular, to the conditions
of social life under antagonistic formations, the oppression and
downtroddenness of the masses, the fact that they had no access
to politics. which was in the hands of the exploiter elite), it is
precisely the people and their daily labour activity that con-
stitute the basis of the historical process, its crucial motive force.

The people is not an amorphous, grey and featureless mass, a
“mechanical” aggregation or a “mob”, as the ideologues of the
aristocracy and the ruling classes have often described it with
disdain, deliberately underestimating its place in social life.

The people is a historical, concrete concept, for it cannot exist
“outside” the society, “outside” history. It changes together with
the society, whose requirements it works to meet. together with
history, which develops owing to its daily constructive activity.

From the standpoint of historical materialism, the people con-
sists of diverse strata, groups and classes, whose positions in the
society differ. But in any case the people is primarily the work-
ing masses, the producers of material values.

Depending on the type of society and the historical condi-
tions, the concrete content of the “working masses” and “peo-
ple” concepts keeps changing. In an antagonistic society, the
people primarily consists of the oppressed classes and strata,
which confront the anti-popular exploiter elite and which make
up the bulk of the population. All of these promote development
and progressive changes in the society. That is why in definite
historical conditions some non-toiling classes can join the people.
At certain turning points in history (in revolutionary situations),
some sections of the national bourgeoisie may join the people
by taking part in social transformations and in the liberation
struggle (anti-imperialist, anti-colonial),

an
BH

|

So, the concept of “the people” can unite diverse groups, classes

and strata, but only if the existing social contradictions be-
tween them are temporarily eased and recede into the background
as compared with the more urgent tasks of struggle against reac-
tion. On the whole, in a society divided into classes with oppo-
site interests, the concepts of “the people” and the population
(of the country) should neither be confused nor equated. So long
as the society is being torn apart by class contradictions, the
antithesis between the working masses, the people as a whole,
and the ruling elite is bound to remain.

It is only in the socialist society, where the antagonism he-
tween classes has been overcome, that the country’s population
as a whole--workers, peasants and working intelligentsia—ac-
tually constitute the whole people.

The people and history. So, the masses are the main force of
the society’s progressive development, for such development is
impossible without the development of the productive forces, and
that, in turn, is impossible without the work of millions of peo-
ple. The masses are the producers of material values, without
which it is hard to imagine the normal daily life of every indi-
vidual and the society as a whole. As they develop production,
accumulate technical experience, and produce ever new mate-
rial values (roads, factories, buildings, machines, household goods,
etc.), men also perfect their instruments of labour. The develop-
ment of production results in technical progress, which helps
to change the productive forces and the mode of production as
a whole. Such is the basic material prerequisite for the involve-
ment of the masses in the society’s advance along the road of
technical and social progress.

But the people’s involvement in history is not confined to
that. Any political, social or national liberation movement is
mainly actuated by the popular masses, without which these move-
ments could hardly have exerted a decisive influence on the
course of history. he masses’ struggle against their oppressors,
against rightlessness and indignity in any epoch of human histo-
ry the class struggle has always been the main driving force
of social revolutions aimed at a resolution of maturing contra-
dictions, the contradictions between those who work and_ those
who appropriate the results of that work. Slave revolts, action by
the peasants and the lower urban strata under feudalism, and

89

the struggle of the proletarian masses under capitalism under-
mined the foundations of the social system in each of these epochs.
being the major force which overturned these foundations and
accelerated the replacement of one formation by another. more
progressive one.

There are many theories which try to interpret the masses”
involvement in social transformations as a purely negative phe-
nomenon, The ideologues of the aristocracy and authoritarianism
regard the masses solely as a guided. passive force of historical
transformations, often presenting it as a destructive force. but
never as a constructive one. According to aristocratic theories.
the only constructive force is the elite. a “select” minority as the
vehicle of the “spiritual” element in history. Authoritarianism
and similar right-wing bourgeois trends still maintain that the
masses. the “nation” is nothing without a leader (meaning a
dictator), that the leader alone “charges” the people with the
energy of historical action, and that it is only through such an
impulse that the people realise and take up their historical mis-
sion. Demagogic slogans of that kind are being used as a cover
for movements with neo-Nazi leanings. just as they were used in
the past by anti-popular fascist regimes in Europe.

Such theories are refuted by history itself. The 20th century
has on many occasions exposed the faulty practice of reducing
the working masses to a blind, thoroughly brainwashed and
obedient instrument in the hands of the reactionary elite of the
imperialist states, which unleash world wars for the sake of their
maniacal interests. wars which take the lives of tens of millions
of people. destroy culture and jeopardise the whole human civi-
lisation. In Nazi Germany and other fascist states, the tactics
of reducing the masses to carrying out the criminal designs di-
rected against mankind was part of state policy. But the people
never resign themselves to the role of a passive and docile instru-
ment in the hands of the ruling elite. Tlowever brutal the repres-
sions. the masses always hope for liberation from the hated po-
litical regimes, expressing passive and, more often, active protest
and using every means at their disposal to fight their oppressors.

The Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia. the build-
ing of socialism in the USSR and other socialist countries, the
people’s democratic revolutions in many countries of the world,
and progressive transformations in the developing states of Euro-

+

90

pe, Asia, Africa and Latin America, animated by the whole work-
ing people, are a vivid example of the masses’ vigorous, creative
and conscious involvement in the historic transformations of our
epoch.

The development of each original national culture is also the
result of the people’s efforts. Alongside material values, the
masses also create immense spiritual values. Folklore. music, the
artistic and spiritual experience gained by man in mastering the
surrounding world, as reflected in works of art, in the conscious-
ness and traditions of the people, are an inexhaustible source
for many professional types of art (poetry and fiction, drama,
music, ballet, painting). Many talented painters, architects, poets.
writers, actors and scientists come from the midst of
the people.

‘The practical life of the masses, of the working people is also
embodied in the idiomatic wealth of the living spoken language.
Language is a means of national and international intercourse.
Being created by the people themselves, language records and
passes on from one generation to another the society’s historical
and cultural experience, including its supreme spiritual achieve-
ments.

The masses also exert an essential influence on the social trans-
formations in the society. The connection between these transfor-
mations and the changes in the mode of production, which in-
fluence the society’s material and spiritual life as a whole, mani-
fests itself through those who are directly involved in the pro-
cess of material production, through the people. through the
working masses. In analysing the role of the masses in periods
of radical historical change, Marx and Engels came to an im-
portant conclusion: the deeper the social transformations and the
larger the scale of the tasks facing the society in the period of
these transformations, the more active is the part played in these
by the working masses and the greater is the number of people
involved in the historical events.

‘That major conclusion on the grocwing role of the masses in
the course of mankind's progressive development lies at the root
of one of the basic laws of historical materialism: the law of his-
torical action by the masses. In criticising the Young Hegelians’
undemocratic, elitist and subjectively idealist views of history,
Marx and Engels formulated that law as follows: “Together with

91

the thoroughness of the historical action, the size of the mass
whose action it is will therefore increase.””?

Indeed, the acceleration of the historical process is directly
connected with the activity level of the people, of the working
masses. Downtrodden and oppressed by arduous subservient la-
bour, the masses could not take an active and conscious part in
the historical process under slavery or feudalism, although they
were the ones whose labour created the necessary material pre-
requisites for social progress. Their sporadic revolts against
the exploiters were invariably suppressed and so had little effect.

Historical development in these epochs was extremely slow.
But when capitalism with its rapid and haphazard development
of the productive forces appeared on the historical scene, ever
more prerequisites began to take shape for an involvement of
the broad producer masses in the processes of historical change.
The rise of the industrial proletariat as an independent social
class taking conscious action against the inhuman living condi-
tions under capitalism meant the emergence of a new social force
capable of exerting a crucial influence on the course of history.
The acceleration of development under capitalism is primarily
due to the greater involvement of the working masses in so-
cial transformations. The proletariat comes to the fore as the
leading force of bourgeois-democratic, and then of socialist, an-
ti-imperialist and anti-colonial revolutions.

The involvement of the multimillion masses in politics, in the
process of social transformations is an objective uniformity. ‘The
reactionary ruling circles of the imperialist states fear such an
involvement most of all. he present-day bourgeoisie has been
using the most diverse means to distract the masses from the
tasks of fundamental social transformations.

Through a smoothly running mechanism for the ideological
indoctrination of the masses, through the mass media, propagan-
da, literature and art. the ruling bourgeois elite seeks to implant
a stereotyped perception of reality. Bourgeois propaganda creates
an illusion of democracy and individual freedom. The capitalist
elite manipulates the consciousness of the masses with the help
of demagogic promises spread by its appointees from among a

* Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, “The Holy Family’. in: Karl
Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 4, 1975, p. 82,

92

hand-fed “working-class aristocracy’, who pose as “popular
leaders”. But that practice of ideological and political brainwash-
ing is less and less effective, for most working people are coming
to realise that capitalism can never ensure real equality for all
members of the society or enable all the working people to take
part in running production and the atfairs of state, in active
and constructive labour for the benefit of the society.

All of that becomes possible only under socialism. The experi-
ence of existing socialism shows that the new society is created
by the energy and skills of the working masses themselves. One
of the laws of socialism is the growing activity of the working
people in shaping the new social relations, which help to unite
all those who work, doing what they can to promote the so-
ciety's advance towards mature socialism and communism. For
the first time in mankind's history, socialism enables the masses
to enjoy the level of material wellbeing and culture which they
attain by their own labour. Under socialism, people work for
themselves, for their own society. [hey feel themselves to be
masters of their fate, and that feeling engenders confidence in
the future, optimism and an urge to work even better. Labour
enthusiasm, socialist emulation and a constant creative quest for
new and more perfect forms of organising labour, daily life, rest
and recreation have become the crucial, decisive features of the
people's life under socialism.

The political vanguard of the people the communist party —
which sets before them concrete goals and tasks in building
the new society and points out the ways to attain these, helps to
enhance the role of the working masses in social development in
the socialist countries.

Equipped with their progressive and scientific Marxist-Leni-
nist theory of social development, the communist parties guide
the working people in their constructive activity, educate them,
encourage their creative endeavour, and direct their efforts to-
wards raising the efficiency of social production, strengthening
the conscientious attitude to work, and scoring fresh labour suc-
cesses for the benefit of the society as a whole. In the name and
in the interests of the peoples, the communist parties follow a pol-
icy of peaceful coexistence in international affairs, seeking to
reduce the danger of nuclear war and to strengthen peace
throughout the world. The socialist countries’ internationalist for-

93

eign policy expresses the peaceful aspirations of all the peoples
of our planet, big and small. In order to ensure its peaceful fu-
ture, the peoples of diverse countries have been coming out
against the imperialist policy of nuclear insanity.

The individual in history. Vhe growing role of the masses in
the cardinal political and social transformations of the epoch
accentuates the question about the importance of the leader-
ship of mass revolutionary movements, that is, about the role of
individuals in history, about the individual’s relation to the pro-
cesses connected with the development and reconstruction of
the society.

Historical epochs change and the society advances in accor-
dance with definite laws connected with the development of ma-
terial social production, the relations within the society’s econom-
ic basis and its superstructure. These relations exist objectively
and independently of the consciousness and activity of individu-
als. Does that mean that the individual cannot influence these
relations, that he has nothing to do with social development,
with the historical process? Not at all. Marxism rejects such a
view of the matter. In regarding historical events as the result
of definite objective causes, which determine the course of these
events, Marxist social theory does not in the least underrate the
importance of individuals taking a direct part in these events,
which constitute the living fabric of human history.

History is made by people, by the masses, and the masses are a
unity of concrete individuals. So, if one recognises the active role
of the masses in the historical process, one should not underesti-
mate the contribution made to that process by each individual,
both outstanding personalities (military and other leaders, states-
men, politicians, etc., who exert a guiding and directing influence
on that process) and its immediate, rank-and-file participants,
its agents, whose specific actions determine the course of that
process.

Let us recall the recent past.

During the Second World War, tens of millions of people took
part in the struggle against fascism. The striving for world domi-
nation on the part of a relatively small oligarchic elite in the fas-
cist states, fostered by Western imperialist circles, was thwarted
by the joint efforts of the peoples, primarily by the heroic strug-
gle of the Soviet people. Bearing the brunt of the aggressor’s at-

94

tack, suffering irretrievable human losses (over 20 million) and
immense material damage (as a result of hostilities on the Euro-
pean territory of the USSR, many towns, cities, villages, plants,
factories, roads, communication lines, cultural and historical mon-
uments, etc., were either totally destroyed or were left in ruins),
the Soviet people, each Soviet citizen mustered all their strength
and resources for the struggle against fascism. The Communist
Party of the Soviet Union was the vanguard of the people’s strug-
gle against fascism both on the battle-field and on the home front.
It directed the activities of tens of millions of Soviet people: front-
line fighters, heroic partisans, and selfless workers in the rear.
Under the Party's guidance, the Soviet people dealt the decisive
and crushing blow at German fascism and Japanese militarism.
The Soviet Union won the Great Patriotic War as a result of the
Soviet people’s feat of arms and heroic labour, and owing to the
military genius of the commanders of the Soviet Army, which
was able to crush the powerful war machine of Nazi Germany.

‘The plans of the fascist oligarchy to reverse the tide of history
were doomed to failure primarily owing to the actions of individ-
ual human beings, of everyone who fought and often lost one’s
life in the fierce battles against fascism, who worked hard on the
home front to bring about a victory, who organised, guided and
directed these efforts, and who fought against fascism on the
“invisible” front in the enemy rear.

‘There are many other vivid examples showing how mass histori-
cal action is made up of the efforts of individuals, groups, parties
and classes. Mankind’s entire history is made up of such joint ac-
tions. In speaking of the Marxist approach to an assessment of the
individual’s role in history, Lenin noted that what distinguishes
that approach from all the other socialist theories is that it ‘“com-
bines complete scientific sobriety in the analysis of the objective
state of affairs and the objective course of evolution with the most
emphatic recognition of the importance of the revolutionary ener-
gy, revolutionary creative genius, and revolutionary initiative of
the masses—and also, of course, of individuals, groups, organisa-
tions, and parties that are able to discover and achieve contact
with one or another class’’.?

"VY. I. Lenin, “Against Boycott’, Collected Works, Vol. 13, 1978,
p. 36.

95

Marxist social theory does not deny the importance of the con-
tribution made by historical personalities to the actions of the
masses, On the contrary, it offers a consistently scientific explana-
tion of the objective and subjective prerequisites for involving
the individual in the socio-historical process, of the importance of
each individual's contribution to the attainment of socially mean-
ingful goals, and the causes of the success or failure of that con-
tribution.

Lenin wrote: “The real question that arises in appraising the
social activity of an individual is: what conditions ensure the suc-
cess of his actions, what guarantee is there that these actions will
not remain an isolated act lost in a welter of contrary acts?’ Con-
sequently, the point is how the individual’s actions correlate with
the conditions of social development, with the interests, tasks
and goals of the social groups, strata and classes which are the
motive forces of social reconstruction in a given historical period.

Marxist social theory starts from the objective dialectics of sin-
gular (particular), specific and general causes operating in the
society’s life and its history. ‘Thus, the general cause of history is
the development of the productive forces, its specific causes are
the historical conditions in which that development takes place,
and its singular, accidental causes are the personal traits of pub-
lic figures, which often put a special, individual tint on parti-
cular historical events.

In emphasising and elaborating that idea, Georgi Ple-
khanov wrote: “Singular causes cannot bring about radical
changes in the operation of general and specific causes, which,
moreover, determine the direction and the bounds of the influ-
ence exerted by particular causes. Yet there is no doubt that his-
tory would have had a different complexion had the particular
causes which influenced it yielded place to other causes of
the same order.”? So, if the success of an individual’s social ac-
tivity depends on the conditions in which that activity takes
place, what are the conditions that guarantee its success? Plek-

'V. 1. Lenin. “What the ‘Friends of the People’ Are and How They
Fight the Social-Democrats’, Collected Works, Vol. 1, p. 159.

> Georgi Plekhanov, “On the Question of the Individual’s Role in
History”, Selected Philosophical Works in five volumes, Vol. II, Progress
Publishers, Moscow, 1976, p. 314.

96

hanov explains: “Two conditions must be met for a man with
a special talent to thereby acquire great influence on the course
of events. First, this talent must make him better suited to the
social needs ot a definite epoch than anyone else... Second, the
existing social order must not bar the read to a person possessing
a talent necessary and useful at this particular time.”

So what are the guarantees that an individual’s activity can
really influence the course of historical development? Plekhanov
specifies: “...0f I know in what way social relations are chang-
ing because of changes in the socio-economic process of produc-
tion, I also know the direction social mentality is moving to-
wards: consequently, I am able to influence it. Influencing social
mentality means influencing historical events. Hence, in a certain
sense, | can yet make history, and there is no need tor me to
wait until ‘vf is made’?*

Recognising the role of outstanding personalities in history,
Marxist social theory regards them as the products of definite so-
cial needs and conditions. What is an outstanding personality?
In the Marxist view, it is an individual who is capable of bold
and profound thought and who can understand the new social
requirements, supporting and developing progressive views and
ideals, and tying these in with the basic vital interests of the
working masses. As a product of definite social relations, of the
epoch and social development, the individual can influence the
historical process, though not by himself, but only in connection
with the activity of a definite class or party, with the direct in-
volvement of the people.

The historical merits of individuals depend on how much they
have done for their people and to advance the general course of
progress.

There is yet another aspect of the individual's activity in his-
tory, which should not be underestimated either. Depending on
a number of objective and subjective factors (abilities, etc.), an
individual who understands the tasks facing the society can either
accelerate the course of events or slow it down, either facili-
tate the solution of urgent problems or hinder it. In other words,

» Ibid., p. 309.
Ibid., p. 315.

71807 97

depending on the actual historical conditions, and also on the
character of the individual’s activity, he or she can exert either
a progressive or a reactionary influence on social development.
But whatever an individual's talent for influencing the course of
events. no one can change their overall direction or reverse his-
tory. he whole course of events in history takes shape in ac-
cordance with objective laws which are independent of individ-
ual will or consciousness.

The more majestic the task facing this or that class and the
more progressive the class itself, the greater is the historical im-
portance of the activities of individuals produced by that class.
“Not a single class in history has achieved power without pro-
ducing its political leaders, its prominent representatives able to
organise a movement and lead it.”? The working class produced
its great leaders: Marx, Engels and Lenin. These men of genius
were outstanding theorists and ardent fighters who organised the
revolutionary movement.

In the transition from capitalism to communism, the masses are
led and organised by the communist parties, which are strong be-
cause they express the interests of the working class, of the broad
masses. Over nearly a century and a half, the communist and
working-class movement in different countries has accumulated
an immense store of experience in the mutual relations between
leaders, parties and the masses. Reflecting the needs of the work-
ing class, of the broad masses and the epoch as a whole, the com-
munist parties and their leaders project (or, in the socialist coun-
tries, point out to the masses in practice) the only true way to-
wards a revolutionary reconstruction of the capitalist society, the
way of peace, social progress and socialism.

So, it is the people themselves, i.e., the masses and individuals,
who are the real motive force of history.

In explaining the correlation between the collective historical
action of the masses and that of individuals, one should neither
underestimate the importance of the former, nor overestimate
the contribution of the latter.

The influence of individuals on history, on the actions of the
masses the main motive force of history depends on the ex-

"V. 1. Lenin, “The Urgent Tasks of Our Movement”, Collected
Works, Vol. 4, p. 370.

98

tent to which these individuals take part in the historical trans-
formations of the epoch.

Since the masses tend to play an ever greater role in modern
history, the importance of each individual as its participant grows
accordingly.

The more significant are the tasks facing the society, the greater
is the importance of the question about progressive social forces,
classes and individuals directing the activities of the masses
in the course of social transformations.

6. HISTORICAL FORMS OF COMMUNITY

Any analysis of the main prerequisites of the human society and
its history would be incomplete without an examination of the
historically developing forms of joint human life: the main his-
torical forms of community. Such an examination will help to
understand how a definite social system influences the ethnic and
national relations existing in the given society, to understand
their functional specifics and development uniformities. ‘The main
historical forms of community include the gens, tribe, nationality
and nation,

Emerging and developing in the mainstream of social pro-
gress, the historical forms of human community replace one
another with changes in the society’s economic basis. In The
Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, Engels
showed very well that the replacement of one form of com-
munity by another is a law-governed and historically necessary pro-
cess, stemming from the development of the mode of production
of material values. ‘Together with a definite mode of production,
basis and superstructural relations, each historical form of com-
munity is therefore an integral component of this or that socio-
economic formation.

Gens. The first historical form of community was the gens,
where people were connected with each other by ties of blood
and economic relations. It was preceded by the primitive herd (a
transitional form of community), which existed for hundreds of
thousands of years while man himself was being formed and was
acquiring labour skills. The gentile community (commune) was
still based on joint, collective ownership and use of the means of
production.

us 99

Having replaced the primitive herd, the gens asserted the re-
lations between people as members of the primary production,
social and ethnic collective of the classless society. All the mem-
bers of the commune had common origins, language, daily life,
customs, beliefs and culture.

Tribe. With the development of economic activity, the gentile
form of social organisation eventually evolved into a tribal form.
The tribe was the result of an association of two or more com-
munes, each of which remained an independent production and
social unit within the tribe. The primitive-communal mode of
production was the definitive basis of that society. The land,
dwellings, tools and household utensils of the commune’s mem-
bers were held as common property. As the tribal organisation be-
came more complicated, it gave rise to such administrative insti-
tutions as elders, military chiefs, high priests, the tribal council,
etc.

‘The tribal form of community created favourable conditions
for the development of human economic activity, production ex-
perience, language and culture. But the relations of kinship which
lay at the root of the gens and the tribe were a major obstacle to
the development of intertribal contacts, slowing down the develop-
ment of economic relations between separate tribes.

All the peoples of the world passed through that initial stage
of development. The emergence of cattle-breeding and the switch
to ploughing in agriculture helped to increase agricultural output.
Wealth began to accumulate within the framework of the com-
mune and individual families. The highest stage in the de-
velopment of the tribal system saw the emergence and evolution
first of familial and then of private property in tools and other
means of production. And that eventually led to changes in that
system, to an erosion of the primitive-communal society and a
transition to a class society.

Nationality. The formation of the class society entailed profound
changes in human life. The development of social division of
labour and exchange relations engendered a form of community
based not only on kinship, but also on definite territorial ties
between people. ‘The ever more complicated economic and trade
relations accelerated the emergence of a qualitatively new form
of human community: the nationality.

The nationality takes shape as a community of people living

100

on one and the same territory and connected by one and the
same language (with a retention of the dialects of the consti-
tuent tribes), and one and the same way of life, cemented by
common traditions, rights and customs which regulate relations
between its members.

That form of community is determined by the economic struc-
ture of precapitalist class relations of production. Economic ties
at that stage are still marked by a certain seclusion and are most-
ly of local importance. and different areas are still isolated in
their economic and daily life. ‘These peculiarities, engendered by
the unevennes of economic and social development, are still evi-
dent in the life of some ethnic groups in our day, which is reflect-
ed in their differing economic, everyday and historico-cultural
structures.

Nation. With the development of the capitalist mode of pro-
duction, prerequisites are created for a strengthening and all-
round expansion of economic and other ties between separate
nationalities, which helps to turn them into nations.

Nations are formed on the basis of a steady community of
economic life which is characteristic of the capitalist formation,
“Nations,” Lenin wrote, “are an inevitable product, an inevitable
form, in the bourgeois epoch of social development.”? Capitalist
commodity relations put an end to the economic disunity of sep-
arate economic regions, help to strengthen ties between the peo-
ple of a given nationality and those of neighbouring nationalities,
and help to form a language that is common to them all, a com-
mon culture, and a common national mentality. So, a nation
emerges as a stable community of people connected by common
territory and economic life, a common language and common
traits of national character. This community is also manifested
in a specific culture.

The formation of nations and their consolidation under capi-
talism is also promoted by the emergence of a centralised state,
which regulates and embodies definite social relations in legal
acts.

Capitalism and national relations. Under capitalism, national
relations are consolidated. ‘heir formation and development go
through several consecutive stages.

* V. 1. Lenin, “Karl Marx”, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 72.

101

The first of these was connected with the rise of capitalism and
the disintegration of feudalism. In that period, nationalities de-
veloped into nations. It was a period of revolutions and national
liberation wars, when the bourgeoisie launched a struggle against
feudalism, advancing the idea of national unity.

At the second stage, when capitalism spread across the world,
developed into a world system and reached its highest, imperialist
stage, the most economically and technically advanced bourgeois
nations (Britain, France, the USA and others) established their
colonial rule over the rest of the world. The imperialist states
divided the world into spheres of economic and political in-
fluence. As they subjugated and plundered other peoples, each of
these states became a vehicle of colonial oppression.

The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw a powerful upsurge
in the national liberation movement of the colonial peoples. That
process was particularly accelerated by the Great October Social-
ist Revolution in Russia in 1917, which ushered in the third
stage, marked by the collapse of the world colonial system and the
formation of independent nations in the countries that had chosen
the road of struggle against imperialist domination. After
the Second World War, the peoples’ liberation process was given
powerful support by the world socialist system. In the present
epoch, the process of the formation of new nations has embraced
virtually the whole of mankind, going hand in hand with radi-
cal social transformations in the advance from capitalism to so-
cialism,

As capitalism evolved into imperialism, national relations were
marked by an ever greater polarisation of two interrelated ten-
dencies: first, ruthless exploitation of the working people by the
ruling class of bourgeois states and the latter’s more intensive
economic, political, national and other oppression of the colonial
and dependent peoples; and second, a growth of national libera-
tion movements both in the countries dependent on imperialism
and in the metropolitan countries themselves.

The struggle between these two tendencies is also due to the
development of capitalism itself, which involves an ever greater
internationalisation of its economic and social life. That struggle
is reflected in a clash between nationalism and internationalism,
the two main lines in resolving the national question under cap-
italism. The struggle between these two lines is a struggle be-

102

tween the two classes of the capitalist world. The first of these-—
the bourgeoisie. -advocates nationalism, while the second the
working class- champions proletarian internationalism in the in-
terests of all the working people.

The struggle between bourgeois nationalism and proletarian
internationalism is also specifically reflected in the contest be-
tween diverse chauvinistic and racist doctrines, which variously
seek to substantiate the superiority of some nations over others,
on the one hand, and the progressive goals of anti-colonial,
democratic and national liberation movements, on the other. In
most countries, the working masses are the backbone of such
movements, although the local bourgeoisie is often involved as
well; by entering into a temporary alliance with the popular
masses and supporting progressive slogans, it seeks to use them
to strengthen its own positions.

The working class and its vanguard, the proletarian party, are
the truly consistent champions of the masses’ interests in these
movements. Asserting the principle of proletarian international-
ism in the minds of the working people, the party is in the van
of the struggle for a full and final liberation of the working peo-
ple from any forms of inequality and national oppression.

Proletarian internationalism is antithetical both to any forms
of bourgeois nationalism, whose theorists proclaim a “communi-
ty” of the national interests of the working people and the bour-
geoisie, and to cosmopolitanism, the ideology of the imperialist
circles. Proletarian internationalism alone upholds the vital inter-
ests of all the working people, tying these in with the goals of
the national movement for social progress. From the standpoint
of the common interests of all the working people—the stand-
point of proletarian internationalism- the working class and its
political vanguard, the party, carry on a vigorous struggle to
overcome the inequality and the domination of some nations by
others, regarding that as the fairest answer to the national ques-
tion.

The national question under capitalism. The national ques-
tion, that is, the question about the ways and means of eliminating
any forms of national oppression and asserting equitable relations
between nations and peoples, acquires exceptional importance
under capitalism, becoming a key question of social development.

With the formation of national states in the initial period of

103

capitalist development, when the assertion of a new and more pro-
gressive (as compared with earlier formations) social system en-
tailed an overall consolidation of national life, which exerted a
strong influence on the development of the economy. ideology
and politics, that question was largely connected with the con-
tinued inequality of national minorities within some multinational
states. Among such states in Europe, for instance, were Austria-
Hungary and the Russian empire, where national oppression of
certain national minorities was coupled with their economic. po-
litical and cultural oppression, so that the question of struggle
for their liberation from any of the existing forms of inequality
was a particularly imperative one. [t was also relevant to other
counties in Europe. Asia and America.

Phe national question took on a particular urgency towards
the beginning of the 20th century. As capitalism evolved into
its highest, imperialist stage, national inequality acquired new
forms and a new content. The world was divided into predomi-
nant. economically and otherwise advanced nations, and peoples
that depended on them. Hence the world colonial system of im-
perialism. Its backbone was made up of Britain, France, Spain,
Portugal and other countries which in the past had conquered
numerous colonies and still retained economic and political domi-
nation ever them. ‘True, by the beginning of the 20th centu-
ry Spain had virtually lost its influence over its once-largest Latin
American empire, but the vacuum in that region was soon filled
by the USA. US neocolonialism continued to spread to other
continents as well. The struggle between the imperialist states
for spheres of colonial influence further aggravated the econom.
ic, political and other contradictions of world capitalism. which
led both to global and to numerous “minor” wars, and engen-
dered new forms of colosial and semi-colonial dependence of
Asian, African and Latin American peoples.

So, the dimensions of the national question were markedly en-
larged with the development of capitalism itself. It was no longer
an internal matter of individual bourgeois states, but a question
of international importance. of world social development.

The division of nations into oppressed and oppressing further
aggravated the contradictions in the development of national re-
lations intrinsic to capitalism. In setting up gigantic international
companies (banks, trusts, corporations, etc.), uniting the world

104

economy, and internationalising economic, financial, political,
cultural and scientific ties between states, imperialism continues
to use coercion in order to establish its rule and keeps looking
for ever new, more effective and ingenious forms of oppressing
and plundering dependent countries and peoples.

It is no longer individual peoples, but whole groups of coun-
tries united by their geographical and economic position that fall
victim to the neocolonialism of the US-led imperialist states.
The USA, Britain and other states make no secret of the fact
that their policy in this or that region of the world is geared to
defend their “strategic” interests. Phat implies not only defence
of the economic interests of the monopolies and transnational
corporations, but largely also a suppression of any progressive ia-
tional liberation movements at their inception.

In recent years, the crisis of national relations in most capt-
talist states has taken a particularly sharp turn. ‘The discrimina-
tion against the smaller nationalities and the virtually legalised
inequality of ethnic minorities infringe on the vital rights of large
numbers of people. In Britain, many immigrants from the Coin-
monwealth countries, who had to leave their homeland in search
of jobs, are victims of open discrimination in the matters of em-
ployment, remuneration, housing, etc.; in the West European
countries, foreign workers coming from Southern Furope or Af-
rica are often discriminated against; and in the USA, the con-
dition of Blacks, Puerto Ricans and Mexicans is a dire indica-
tion of national inequality, rightlessness and oppression. National
relations under capitalism are shot through with innumerable
contradictions.

Socialism and the national question. Marx and Engels pro-
claimed in the Manifesto of the Communist Party: “In propor-
tion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes.
the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.”?

The Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia in 1917
opened a new epoch in national relations, and not only among the
peoples of Russia itself, but also among many other countries
of the world. From the very outset, the Soviet state proclaimed
the full equality and sovereignty of all the peoples of Russia. That
was reflected in the Declaration of Rights of the Peoples of

2 Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 6, 1976, p. 503.

105

Russia, adopted on November 15, 1917. By proclaiming the sov-
ereignty of the peoples of Russia, the Soviet state recognised
the right of each of them to independent development and elim-
inated the various national privileges and restrictions.

The voluntary unification of the peoples of Russia led to the
formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in Decem-
ber 1922 as the first multinational state in mankind’s history based
on true equality of the rights of its constituent peoples, irre-
spective of their development level. In order to make that equal-
ity truly effectual, the Soviet state projected and launched a
broad programme of economic, social and cultural development
in the former national outskirts of tsarist Russia. The transform-
ations in the social structure and the formation of new social
relations were thus parallelled by an assertion of a new type of
national relations: relations of equality, mutual respect and coop-
eration among the most diverse, big and small, nationalities.
That also helped to strengthen the monolithic and unbreakable
unity of the Soviet peoples.

Tn a historically short period, the vestiges of the peoples’ eco-
nonuc and cultural backwardness were totally eliminated. Each
of them now had an opportunity freely to develop its national
culture, with access to the cultural achievements of the other
Soviet peoples. Socialism gave a new lease of life to many small
nationalities doomed to gradual extinction under tsarism. As they
developed their economy, culture and language (before the rev-
olution, some of the smaller nationalities had no written language
of their own and acquired one only after the revolution) these
nationalities rapidly assimilated the achievements of the bigger
nations,

An internationalisation of the society’s economic, social and
spiritual life under socialism also helps to bring the nations and
nationalities closer together, creating conditions for broader con-
tacts between them. As a result of the successes scored by social-
ism and the formation of a new type of national relations, a new
historical type of social and international community-—the Soviet
people- took shape in the USSR.

Under mature socialism, the law of an organic unity of the
national and the international operates in every sphere of social
life, including the relations between nations and nationalities. So-
cialism ensures a unity of the specific interests of each nation with

106

the interests of the country’s multinational population, “Phat law
also manifests itself in the relations between states of the social-
ist community. The new-type international relations existing be-
tween the socialist countries are marked by a harmonisation of
the interests of each country’s economic, political and cultural
development with those of the community as a whole. That is
evident from the tendencies towards an economic integration of
the socialist countries on a truly equitable and just basis, from
the coordination of their national economic plans, the deepening
division of labour, the mutual exchange of scientific and technical
achievements. specialisation and cooperation in such vitally im-
portant spheres as the strengthening of their defence capability
and the drive for peace, and also coordination of their assistance
to other, primarily developing, countries.

Socialism sets a convincing example of how the interests of
individual countries and peoples can be truly harmonised, without
ruling out the specifics and diversity of their historical experience.
Any attempts by imperialist ideologues to present the variety
of the ways and methods of asserting the socialist way of life
as a manifestation of nationalism, a divergence of the goals
and programmes of socialist construction in different countries
are invalid, for these attempts reflect a patently false and distort-
ed idea about the nature of national relations under socialism, a
social system which puts an end to any form of social and na-
tional inequality.

Socialism, a future-oriented system, creates conditions lor bring-
ing diverse nations and nationalities closer together, and forms
common features in the character of the people, for whom the
experience of their own national culture and the material and
spiritual achievement of other peoples merge into a_ single
whole.

In summing up this chapter, one should note that:
the Marxist approach to studying the prerequisites of the
society and the motive forces of its history brings out the objec-
tive dialectics of the natural and social conditions of human pro-
duction activity and various aspects of social being and conscious-
ness;

107

Marxist social theory gives a consistently scientific explana-

tion of various aspects of life in the society as an integral social
organism, of the laws of its functioning and development;

~ the materialist explanation of the historical process shows
the specifics of its basic uniformities and offers scientific guide-
lines for studying the tendencies of that process in mankind's
past, present and future.

Chapter Four
THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE

As it was shown in Chapter Three. social development is a suc-
cession of socio-economic formations, a process which unfolds in
accordance with the laws of the development of the modes of
material production intrinsic to each formation. ‘These laws also
result in a lack of social uniformity, in the society's division into
large groups of people known as classes. In examining the mo-
tive forces of history and the historical role of the popular masses
and individuals, we have already touched upon various aspects
of socio-class relations. Marxisrn regards these relations as the
initial and basic components of the society’s social structure.

1. THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE:
THE CONCEPT DEFINED
Marx was the first to use the concept of structure in social science
for an analysis of the human society. He examined the society’s
structure on the strength of its material production prerequisites.
His view of the society as a system of variously interconnect-
ed relations enabled Marx to present these relations as an inte-
gral social structure.

Social structure is an integral concept characterising diverse
aspects of social life and bringing out the interconnection between
definite social relations (economic, legal, political, moral, reli-
gious, etc.) and their mutual arrangement. ‘These relations con-
stitute relatively autonomous systems and subsystems within the
framework of the social structure as a whole, being its initial
components.

The subjects, the vehicles of all these relations are people,
concrete individuals. As social agents, they create and transform
these relations, and so also the social structure as a whole. Marx-

° 109

ism rejects any abstract. non-historical interpretations of the so-
cial structure, in which “man” is contrasted with the “society”,
maintaining that such a contrast is unjustified. Marxism starts
from the premise that man is a social being, that he is both a
product and an architect of the society in which he lives.

As an individual, that is, as a social being, man is connected
with the surrounding world by diverse relations. ‘Uhese relations
in their totality form the social structure of the society. lhe com-
plicated, multilevel nature of these relations calls for an approach
that would make it possible to determine the crucial, causative
relations and those which are derivative and dependent on the
former.

In analysing the process of material, economic life in the so-
ciety, Marx found that such causative relations were primarily
the relations between classes.

In a society divided into large groups of people, each of which
has its own special place in the social structure in view of the
existing division of labour, its economic status, its place in the
system of production, etc., the relations between classes permeate
every sphere of life and determine all the other social relations.

‘The society’s social structure should therefore be studied pri-
marily in the light of the relations taking shape between classes.
The social structure is made up of the classes, groups and
strata that exist in a given society and the system of their mu-
tual relations.

Bourgeois theories of the social structure take a non-class (or
supra-class) approach to the content of its constituent relations,
reducing these to distinctions in the “subcultures”, “ideologies”
and ways of life of separate groups (ethnic communities, gener-
ations, etc.) and trying to pinpoint among these distinctions
their different value orientations in the light of which people see
their place in the social structure.

But the individual’s place in the social structure is not de-
termined by his subjective notions, but by the real, objective socio-
economic distinctions connected with his place within the system
of material production relations that exist in the society. Social
differentiation stems from the relations that take shape between
people in the process of production and distribution of labour
products in each particular society. It cannot be reduced to dis-
tinctions in age, sex, generation or nationality although the lat-

110

ter can acquire a qualitative social significance in the context of
a definite socio-class structure. However, they cannot be seen as
the initial categories of social differentiation. There is no ground
for asserting (as the theorists of “youth protest’, women’s and
other movements in the West often do) that the socially mean-
inglul distinctions existing in the society between separate groups,
strata, substrata, etc., imply the existence of corresponding “clas-
ses”, which take shape through a similar perception of life, of
reality. The social distinctions between various groups (women,
the young, the aged, etc.) are objectively determined primarily
by the place of each of these groups in the social structure of the
society, by the fact that they belong to a particular class.

In examining history as a succession of socio-economic forma-
tions, we have already drawn a conclusion on the law-governed
succession of producer-classes, on the one hand, and the classes
that own the means of production, on the other, with the emer-
gence, development and decline of the corresponding modes of
production in each antagonistic type of society: slaveholding,
feudal and capitalist. It is precisely in a society based on pri-
vate property in the means of production, economic inequality
and man’s exploitation of man that classes first emerged. The
antithesis between the economic status of classes and their inter-
ests led to an intensive and constant struggle between them.
For thousands of years, mankind’s history was marked by cease-
less struggle, because class struggle is the motive force in the de-
velopment of antagonistic socio-economic formations.

Before turning to the prerequisites of changes in the social
structure, let us consider the scientific definition of the concept
of “class”, the origins and essence of classes.

2. CLASSES AND THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE

Pre-Marxist political economy, philosophy and_ sociology also
recognised the society’s division into classes. Their understanding
of class distinctions, however, was largely confined to an idealis-
tic view of the society. The social thought of the past could not
bring out the objective basis of class divisions, which lies in the
sphere of material social production. That was done by Marx
and Engels, who discovered that the society’s division into classes
is primarily due to economic causes, and that the source of social

{11

inequality les in the social division of labour, connected with
economic inequality, with the society's division into rich and
poor. Engels wrote that “a/l past history... was the history of
class struggles; that these warring classes of society are always the
products of the modes of production and of exchange-in a
word, of the economic conditions of their time”.

So, cach mode of production creates its own socio-class struc-
ture. Each antagonistic mode of production engenders its own pe-
culiar division of the society into classes: under the slaveholding
mode of production, the society was divided into slave-owners
and slaves; under feudalism, into landowners (feudal lords) and
peasants: and under capitalism. into capitalists and proletarians
(the working class). ‘Vhat is why any class should be seen in the
context of the definite mode of production that produced that
class.

Lenin gave a profound and all-round definition of classes in a
work entitled “A Great Beginning”. Ile wrote: “Classes are
large groups of people differing from each other by the place they
occupy in a historically determined system of social production,
by their relation (in most cases fixed and formulated in law) to
the means of production, by their role in the social organisation
of labour, and, consequently, by the dimensions of the share of
social wealth of which they dispose and the mode of acquiring
it. Classes are groups of people one of which can appropriate the
labour of another owing to the different places they occupy in
a definite system of social economy.”?

The division into classes affects the entire system of social re-
lations in any antagonistic formation. ‘That is reflected both in
the economic organisation of the class society and in its ideologi-
cal, political and cultural life. Irreconcilable class contradictions
engender the class struggte, which pervades the whole social struc-
ture. Many of the distinctions that characterise the social struc-
ture (like those between workers by hand and by brain, between
urban and rural dwellers, or between ethnic, age, occupational
and other groups) are exacerbated in a society divided into an-
tagonistic classes.

Present-day Western sociologists increasingly urge the need to

" Frederick Engels, Anti-Dihring, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1975,
p: 35:
* VL. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 29, 1977, p. 421.

112

examine diverse cross-sections of the social structure from the
angle of class and intra-class distinctions. ‘The theories of so-called
social stratification (i.e., the singling out of independent so-
cial strata on the strength of everyday, ethnic or occupational
culture, educational level, etc.) do not bring out such distine-
tions. for they underestimate in varying degree the objective, so-
cio-economic criteria of the division into classes.

Marxism, on the contrary, examines the distinctions in the so-
cial status of various groups, strata and substrata within a given
class’ in the general context of the society's social structure, con-
necting these distinctions with the development and change of
definite modes of production. The classes engendered by the mode
of production that prevails in a given society are its basic classes.
In addition to these, the society often has what are known as
transitional classes, whose existence is either due to a retention of
some elements of earlier modes ol production or to the emer-
gence of new economic structures. Within the social structure,
these classes are non-basic. Under slavery, for instance, such non-
basic classes were the landed peasants and handicraftsmen. As for
capitalism, its non-basic classes include the big landowners (who
use both archaic and modern, capitalist modes of exploiting the
farmers, the petty bourgeoisie (small traders, house-owners, crafts-
men, etc.).

So, changes in the society’s social structure are connected with
changes in the correlation between classes (basic and non-basic)
conditioned by the development of a definite mode of production.
In many developing countries, the specifics of the changes going
forward within the social structure are usually predetermined by
the multistructural nature of the economy. ‘The correlation of
classes within the social structure of these countries can only be
understood through an analysis of its old, traditional, and _ its
new components (including those connected with industriali-
sation---with the emergence and growth of the national working
class, the formation of an intelligentsia stratum, etc.).

‘ Within the bourgeoisie, for instance, one can single out diverse
groupings of the monopoly bourgeoisie, big industrial and banking capi-
tal, the middle bourgeoisie (both urban and rural), and diverse pettly-
bourgeois strata (often semi-proletarised), whose status objectively brings
them close to the mass of working people (the industrial and agricultur-

al proletariat), but which retain their small-proprietor, individualistic
mentality.

8—1807 113

The status, size and correlation of various classes and strata
within the social structure change in direct connection with the
development of production. Thus, the share of the bourgeoisie
in the social structure of the present-day capitalist society has been
steadily declining. The concentration of capital and the scientific
and technical revolution have entailed considerable changes in
the capitalist mode of production. A special stratum—the mo-
nopoly bourgeoisie—has stood out from the capitalist class. The
number of small and middle proprietors has gone down sharply
as the monopolies have taken over the property of uncompetitive
private entrepreneurs. As a result, the monopoly bourgeoisie
in the developed capitalist countries now constitutes from 1 to 4
per cent of the gainfully employed population. ‘The power and
wealth of the monopoly stratum, however, have continued to
grow. The greater centralisation of capital has intensified the
struggle between various groupings within the capitalist class.
‘The latter has also come to confront a larger army of wage-
workers, which has swelled at the expense of the ruined petty
and middle bourgeoisie, both urban and rural.

‘The development of capitalism has involved a proletarisation
of the petty bourgeoisie, which is being ruined and either falls
into economic dependence on big capital or loses its property in
the means of production altogether. ‘That is an objective and
law-governed process, reflecting Marx’s law of the growing con-
centration of capital. While serving to ruin small producers who
cannot stand the economic competition, that process does not en-
tail their total expulsion from the capitalist class. he monopo-
lies often find it more profitable to control the activity of small
enterprises rather than assume their production functions. ‘That
is why in the conditions of tough and ceaseless competition the
ruin and proletarisation of a section of small and middle pro-
ducers in some branches of the economy goes hand in hand with
a reproduction of such producers in others. And that process is
characteristic of present-day monopoly capitalism.

Another crucial feature of the changes in the socio-class struc-
ture of the capitalist society is the growing size and share of the
army of wage-workers. At the beginning of the 1980s, it came
to over 80 per cent of the gainfully employed population in the
developed capitalist countries.

To trace the dynamics of the growth of the working class un-

114

der capitalism in its historical perspective, one could compare
two figures: at the end of the 19th century, the number of in-
dustrial workers in the biggest Western countries totalled roughly
30 million, and by the mid-20th century it had almost doubled
to more than 58 million. In our day, the working class has been
growing on a global scale, as the process has also spread to nu-
merous developing countries, which have a burgeoning working
class of their own. Qualitative changes are also under way in
the structure of the working class itself, resulting from the de-
velopment of production under the STR (rising skill standards
among the workers, greater specialisation, etc.).

The social status of the working class and the qualitative
changes in its complexion in effect refute the theories according to
which the social structure of present-day capitalism has been de-
veloping towards an accelerating growth of the so-called “new
middle classes”, which include both mental and manual workers
(the intelligentsia, office personnel, managerial staff, etc.). ‘The
task of such theories is to “smooth over” socio-class distinctions
under capitalism.

In actual fact, however, the basic distinctions in the social
status of the working class, the farmers, various strata of the in-
telligentsia, office personnel, etc., are not “smoothed over” but
remain under present-day capitalism. Even if any levelling does
occur, it is only towards an ever greater proletarisation of the
most diverse groups and strata of the capitalist society. ‘That
creates both objective and subjective prerequisites for a closer
alliance between the working class and broad working strata in
town and country, helping to consolidate all the anti-monopo-
ly forces led by the working class.

An analysis of the social structure of the present-day capital-
ist society calls, therefore, for a qualitative approach based on
a study of the correlation of classes and strata within the capi-
talist mode of production, from which that structure arises and
under whose influence it develops. Thus, an increase in the num-
ber of office personnel (or white-collar workers, as they are
known in applied sociology) and the intelligentsia does not in
itself signify any profound qualitative changes in the social struc-
ture of capitalism, for in their socio-economic status these groups
are drawing closer to the working class. Naturally, both the in-
telligentsia (especially members of the so-called liberal profes-

8* 115

sions—lawyers, doctors, workers in culture and the arts) and
employees (top managerial stratum) have an elite of their own,
which has coalesced with the ruling class and which serves its
interests, and also fairly numerous groups standing at much low-
er rungs of the social ladder. Stratification of the capitalist
society embraces all groups and classes without exception. So, far
from being erasea, socio-class distinctions under capitalism are
further deepened as the main, pivotal tendency in the develop-
ment of its social structure. That development is marked by an
antithesis and polarisation of the interests of its basic classes.
the bourgeoisie and the oligarchy, on the one hand, and the
working class, all the working masses, on the other and by ever
more intensive class battles.

‘The class struggle runs through the whole of mankind’s his-
tory and is a powerlul instrument of radical social transforma-
tions, Under present-day capitalism, as in any earlier antagonistic
society, the class struggle unfolds in every sphere of life without
exception: the economy, politics, ideology and culture.

That struggle manifests itself in a clash between the funda-
mental, essential interests of the toiling classes and those who
exploit them, who hold the levers of economic, political and
ideological domination in the society. That is why the struggle
of the toiling classes for their rights takes the forms of econom-
tc, political and ideological struggle. In the economic strug-
gle, the main emphasis is on improving the working people's
material-economic condition. Lhe political and ideological strug-
gle develops on a higher plane, as the masses come to under-
stand their place, their historical role and tasks in the struggle for
economic, political and social emancipation from capitalist op-
pression.

All these forms of class struggle are closely interconnected. ‘The
working people's struggle for an improvement of their material
condition (economic struggle), against the political domination
of the bourgeoisie, for working people’s power, and for a demo-
cratisation of the society (political struggle), against spiritual
oppression, for a progressive ideology (ideological struggle) in-
fluences the social structure of any society divided into antagon-
istic classes. The class struggle paves the way for progressive

transformations through a radical change in every sphere of so-

116

cial life. Such a change amounts to a social revolution, whose
highest form is a socialist revolution.

A socialist revolution brings about radical transformations in
the social structure of the capitalist society. It puts an end to
private property in the means of production, and so also to the
exploiter classes as a whole, to the antagonism between labour
and capital, and asserts true social equality for all members of
the society, irrespective of nationality, skin colour, religious and
other views and convictions.

3. SOCIALISM: TOWARDS A NEW TYPE
OF SOCIAL STRUCTURE

With the victory of a socialist revolution, a new type of social
structure begins to take shape and is steadily perfected on the
basis of deep-going and all-round transformations of the capi-
talist system. The social structure under socialism comprises two
basic friendly classes: the working class and the collective farm-
ers, and also the working intelligentsia, a growing social stra-
tum which consists of diverse groups and substrata (scientific
and technical. military, artistic intelligentsia, etc.). These groups
and substrata have no independent status in the system of social
production, and do not constitute an independent class.

The socio-class structure of the socialist society takes shape
(as it was in the USSR) as a result of fundamental changes in
the class composition of the country’s population. These changes
reflect the basic uniformities of the transformations that take
place in the period of transition from capitalism to socialism
and in laying the foundations of socialism.

The triumphant socialist revolution in Russia in 1917 entailed
the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat. That form
of state power in the transition period enabled the working peo-
ple to uphold their gains in the struggle against the attempts of
the overthrown propertied classes to restore their lost privileges
not only by way of an open intervention launched by imperial-
ism against the Soviet Republic, but also by way of destabilis-
ing the economy from within, by way of political boycott and
isolation. and also sabotage by bourgeois-minded specialists, in-
tellectuals and officials.

In the transition period, the proletarian dictatorship did not
put an end to the struggle between classes. Having strengthened

117

the political power of the victorious working class, the prole-
tarian dictatorship in Russia continued to perform its coercive
tasks in the class struggle of the transition period (suppression
of the remnants of the exploiter classes, civil war), but was now
also able to tackle purely constructive tasks in order to neutralise
the influence of the petty bourgeoisie, enlist the cooperation of
bourgeois specialists, help the peasantry and the intelligentsia
to break the spell of bourgeois ideology, and draw them into
the work being done to root out the social aftermath of cap-
italism and lay the foundations of socialism.

Within two decades of the revolution, the basis of a new type
of social structure, consisting of working classes and strata, had
taken shape in the USSR. Over these years, all remnants of the
exploiter classes had been overcome and gradually disappeared.
As existing socialism continued to grow stronger, the social struc-
ture developed (and continues to develop) towards an erasure
of socio-class distinctions between different groups of the popu-
lation. As these distinctions are being overcome in the devel-
oped socialist society, a homogeneous social structure is gradual-
ly taking shape. This is a law-governed, though protracted pro-
cess, connected with the advance of mature socialism towards
a classless social structure.

The experience of transformations in the social structure of
different socialist countries is diverse and abundant, and in view
of its diversity that experience is of great practical interest. Af-
ter all, the revolutionary reconstruction of the society affects the
future of millions upon millions of people. It cannot follow rou-
tine patterns. The ways of social reconstruction are in each par-
ticular case determined by the concrete historical conditions. In
most socialist countries after the Second World War these trans-
formations took a somewhat different road than they did in Rus-
sia after the October Revolution.

As the exploiter classes disappear in the course of socialist
construction, the alliance between the working class. the peasant-
ry and the people’s intelligentsia tends to strengthen. The lead-
ing role here belongs to the working class, which remains the
society’s main productive force, and which initiates and organises
all the progressive undertakings in the quest for ways to
optimise production and perfect social relations. The working
class is able to play the role of the society’s leading force not

118

only because of its numerical growth. connected with the develop-
ment of the productive forces, but also because of qualitative
changes in its complexion: its rising educational, technical and
cultural level and its growing political activity. The working
class under socialism plays the major role in running produc-
tion, in the work of the organs of power both in the localities
and at a high state level (the USSR Supreme Soviet and the
Supreme Soviets of the Union Republics) and in the activity
of diverse social organisations.

The cooperated peasantry (in the USSR, the collective farm-
ers) is a class free from exploitation and from any survivals
of petty-bourgeois proprietor individualism. Its educational le-
vel has been steadily rising. and a high sense of civic duty, col-
lectivism and loyalty to the socialist cause are among its new
features. As the nature of agricultural work changes with the
switch to highly productive and highly mechanised work, the
essential distinctions between the working conditions of urban
workers and farmers in the countryside are gradually erased.

Significant changes also occur in the complexion of the so-
cialist intelligentsia. It keeps growing numerically. As its new
members come from among the working class and the collective
farmers, it turns into a truly people’s intelligentsia. In the condi-
tions of developed socialism in the USSR, the intelligentsia has
been growing rapidly through an influx of technical and other
specialists with a higher or secondary education.

The changes that occur within the working class, the peas-
antry and the intelligentsia in the USSR with the perfection of
developed socialism create the necessary prerequisites for the
emergence of a new type of socio-political community, the Soviet
people.

The erasure of essential distinctions between mental and man-
ual work, and between town and country help to make the
developed socialist society ever more socially homogeneous. And
although that will take time, this tendency is already sufficiently
pronounced, gathering momentum as the crucial and decisive

tendency.
* * *

The Marxist view of the society’s social structure singles out
socio-class relations as its crucial, decisive characteristics.

119

It is solely on the basis of socio-class relations that one can
explain the antagonistic and other contradictions which are the
source of changes in the society's social structure and its devel-
opment.

At the same time, the Marxist analysis of the social structure
is not confined to these relations. Marxism also examines the
correlation between the various classes. groups and strata of a giv-
en society on the strength of all the factors and conditions that
determine their status in the social structure, on the strength of
the distinctions between them and their common features, the
tendencies of the changes in the social structure and its progres-
sive development.

Chapter Five
THE SOCIETY AND POLITICS

Marx and Engels devoted much attention to the study of poli-
tics as a special social phenomenon. In elaborating the princi-
ples of their new approach to the society as an integral social or-
ganism. they also projected guidelines for the study of political
life as a special sphere of human activity, determined by the
class relations existing in the society.

Marx and Engels gave a brilliant analysis of political life in
the bourgeois society in works like The Eighteenth Brumaire of
Louts Bonaparte, The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850,
The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, etc.

In the 20th century, Lenin raised the traditions of Marxist
political analysis to a new level, making a major contribution
to the emergence of Marxist political theory as an independent
scientific discipline. In many of his works (primarily Imperial-
ism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, The State and Revolution,
and others), Lenin used the dialectical approach and the basic
sociological principles of a scientific analysis of the class nature
of politics, the essence of political relations, the state, and poli-
tics as a social phenomenon.

Before getting down to an examination of political problems,
their formulation and solution in Marxist theory, let us first give
a definition of politics.

1. POLITICS. CLASSES, THE STATE

Politics 1s a special sphere of activity connected with the rela-
tions between diverse social groups, classes and nations. The re-
lations that take shape between people in that sphere of activity
are known as political relations.

121

These relations emerge with the appearance of classes, with
the society's division into antagonistic classes, and constitute the
basis of the political organisation of the class society. In their
most concentrated form, political relations manifest themselves
in social life through the involvement of representatives from
each class, group and nation in the functioning of the society’s
political organisation, in the affairs of state.

What is the society’s political organisation? What is the state?
What are its goals and purposes?

Marxist theory explains the origins and essence of the state,
political relations, and their importance in social life on the
strength of the scientific materialist conception of the society's
class structure.

The emergence of classes and new social relations (political
and legal) entrenching the class division of the society gave rise
to a host of organisations and institutions whose task was to reg-
ulate these relations. The most important among them was the
state.

The state arose and developed primarily as an instrument
enabling one class to exercise political domination over other
classes. Ever since the class society emerged thousands of years
ago, the state has remained an instrument of political power in
the hands of the ruling class (or several classes). No wonder
that the concept of “politics” has traditionally been connected
with state power. The types and forms of political organisation
in societies divided into antagonistic classes have kept changing,
but the essence of the state has always remained the same.

The state is the organisation of the political power of the rul-
ing class. But in winning and retaining that power, in the strug-
gle for its vital interests, the ruling class not only uses the state,
but also sets up political parties, diverse non-government organ-
isations, cooperatives, church and other institutions. All of these
in their totality constitute the society’s political organisation,
that is, the system of institutions, establishments and other bodies
which regulates the mutual relations between classes, nations
and states in the sphere of politics. That sphere embraces:
1) political institutions and relations; 2) political consciousness;
3) political activity.

The core of the society’s political organisation is the state, a
complex and ramified mechanism of legislative, executive and

122

judicial institutions which enforces through laws and other state
acts—the power of the ruling class over all citizens without
exception.

Diverse non-Marxist conceptions of the state accentuate its
“contractual” and “supra-class’ character. According to these
conceptions, the state emerged and exists in consequence of the
human awareness of the need for “order” and “mediation” in
the societv, where different interests come into collision; it is
seen as a continuation of the abstract idea of justice, of the
“unity” and “harmony” of these interests.

Such conceptions, however, merely serve to obscure the essence
of the state. As Marxism has shown, the state is not an arti-
ficial entity rising over and above the society or imposed on it
from outside. It is a product of the society’s own development,
a result of the changes that take place in the sphere of mate-
rial social production. With the replacement of one mode of
production by another, the form of state system changes accord-
ingly. That is a general uniformity in the development of the
state, of the society’s political organisation, intrinsic to any an-
tagonistic-class formation.

Type and form of the state. In the course of mankind’s his-
torical development, the state has kept changing, with one type
of state system giving way to another. The forms of the state
have changed as well.

The type of the state is determined by the predominant class,
which wields its power to preserve and entrench the production
relations that suit that class.

History has known four main types of state: slaveholding, feu-
dal, capitalist and socialist. The first three of these are antag-
onistic, while the latter is non-antagonistic; it is a new type of
state defending the interests of the whole people.

The form of state is the concrete organisation of state power.
It is usually determined by many circumstances: the specific
historical conditions of each country’s development, the balance
of class forces within it, and so on.

In the classless primitive-communal society, where social re-
lations were regulated through tribal customs and traditions,
there was as yet no need for a state as a special institution enabl-
ing’ some people to exercise power over others. Social power in
that society directly coincided with the armed population, and

123

supreme power belonged to the general meeting. But with the
development of production, the deepening of the division of la-
bour, the emergence of private property in the means of pro-
duction, and the resultant division of the society into classes, the
tribal system and the related form of administration became ob-
solete. As Engels showed in The Origin of the Family, Private
Property and the State, the tribal form of government in that
epoch gave way to the state.’

So, the state arose in view of the need to protect private
property and the power of the propertied class, and to hold the
oppressed classes in subjection. Consequently, the exploiter state
is a political organisation of the economically predominant class
designed for a struggle against the exploited, for a suppression of
their resistance. The emergence of the state and its subsequent
development involved an irreconcilable class struggle. Epochs,
forms of private property, types of class structure and forms of
power kept changing, but the essence of the exploiter state re-
mained the same.

Distinctive features and functions of the state. The state is
a major component of the superstructure that rises above the
society’s economic hasis and serves to maintain, strengthen and
defend the relations that constitute that basis.

As compared with the non-political system of governance that
existed in the primitive-communal society, the state in a class
society is characterised by three main features: so-called public
power (a special privileged group of people governing other
people; a bureaucracy, an army and a police force, punitive and
intelligence organs, prisons, etc.—such are the main components
of that coercive power and its instruments); taxation of the pop-
ulation, which is necessary to maintain the machinery of state
power; and territorial division, which makes it easier to defend
the interests of the ruling classes within the borders of a given
territory.

Diverse forms of government first developed in the slavehold-
ing society: monarchy (power of a monarch, an emperor), aris-
tocracy (power of a minority), republic (electoral power), de-
mocracy (power of the majority). In spite of these diverse forms

‘ See Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works in three vol-
umes, Vol. Three, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1970, p. 326.

124

of government, the state in that epoch remained a slaveholding
state, for it upheld and defended the interests of one class: the
slave-owners. Different forms of government also existed under
feudalism, where states were either monarchies or republics. But
that did not change the class essence of the feudal state, whose
invariable purpose was to put down protest by the oppressed
classes, the peasants and handicraftsmen.

Under capitalism, where the state exercises the rule of the
bourgeoisie in every sphere of social life, it can be either a re-
public (the USA, Italy, etc.) or a monarchy, often constitutional
(Britain, Spain, Sweden, etc.). Under imperialism, the bour-
geoisie sometimes resorts to openly undemocratic forms of gov-
ernment in order to prevent or postpone the social and _politi-
cal transformations demanded by the working masses.

Even in the past few decades of the 20th century, the bour-
geois ruling circles of a number of capitalist states have been
known to install “strong”, openly right-wing dictatorial regimes
whenever the class struggle has risen to a particularly high pitch.
Under the slogan of “defending national interests from the
threat of international communism’, these regimes brutally sup-
press any democratic movements of the working people in their
countries, implant militarism, and follow a policy of revenge-
seeking, aggressive military ventures, genocide and racism. Di-
rectly infringing upon spiritual values, culture, humanism and
elementary human rights, these regimes ultimately pose a threat
to the very class whose interests they are meant to serve. Just
as in fascist Germany and Italy and in militarist Japan towards
the end of the Second World War, so in Spain at the end of the
Franco era (the 1960s and 1970s), in Chile in the 1970s, and
in other states, members of the ruling classes (including the
bourgeoisie) often joined the society’s progressive forces in a
vigorous struggle against the dictatorial regimes.

As an organisation of the ruling class, the antagonistic state
also performs a whole range of regulative functions, aimed at
consolidating the unity of that class and strengthening the foun-
dations of the existing social system.

These functions include:

—the economic function (juridical regulation of property re-
lations, drafting of labour legislation, etc.), and a related juri-
dical function, which involves regulation of the whole totality

125

of social relations through a system of legalised (juridical)
norms; both these functions are also functions of exploitation,
of the economic and political suppression of the working masses;

the function of regulating relations both between the ex-
ploiter classes in order to rally them together in their struggle
against the opposing classes and in defence of their social sys-
tem, and between the exploited classes;

~—the function of defending the interests of the ruling class
in international relations (external function).

For running the society and performing its functions, the state
has a special apparatus. Since an exploitative system cannot
exist without coercion of the working masses, it is inconceivable
without a coercive apparatus, a special repression machine, which
includes an army, an intelligence service, punitive organs and
prisons.

Alongside the state apparatus, the ruling class also uses such
an instrument of state power as law.

Law is a system of rules of conduct enshrined in legislation
and sanctioned by the state. In regulating property rights and
privileges, the exploiter state legalises not only the economic
system of exploitation, but also the system of social relations de-
termined by it (relations between classes and other social groups,
the status of the family, various ethnic groups, national minori-
ties and non-government organisations, civil rights and duties).
In one form or another, law embraces every aspect and type of
human activity in the society. With its help, the exploiter state
ensures delence of private property and the vital interests of
the ruling classes.

Special note should be taken of the state's external function.
Foreign policy has always been a continuation of domestic poli-
cy. Ihe reactionary aspirations of the exploiter classes in do-
mestic policy are usually extended through an aggressive for-
eign-policy line. Through their colonial conquests, subjugation
and plunder of other peoples in the late 19th and the first half
of the 20th centuries, the ruling classes of a number of imper-
ialist countries have acquired a vast sphere of exploitation and,
consequently, immense profits.

At present, the ruling circles of the USA and other NATO
countries, which safeguard the interests of the biggest monopo-
lies, have been following a policy of headlong militarisation of

126

the economy and an arms drive, harbouring wild plans of global
domination. ‘That policy, however, is opposed by all peace-lov-
ing peoples, primarily the socialist community countries and the
whole of progressive mankind.

2. PRESENT-DAY CAPITALISM:
THE SOCIETY AND POLITICS
In analysing the tendencies of development at the monopoly
stage of capitalism, Lenin showed that the evolution of the bour-
geois state, the political organisation of the bourgeois society,
leads to an “extraordinary strengthening of the ‘state machine’
and an unprecedented growth in its bureaucratic and military
apparatus’.

Indeed, the political system of the antagonistic-class society
reaches its peak under capitalism. The administrative system is
perfected and the repressive apparatus, whose purpose is to com-
bat democratic social movements, is invigorated in the condi-
tions of a ceaseless class struggle.

The struggle between political parties, which advocate and
defend the interests of various classes, is sharply intensified, The
multiparty system of present-day capitalism is a logical product
of the intractable contradictions between its classes and social
strata.

True, the multiparty system enables some groups of the bour-
geoisie to derive certain benefits from the struggle between va-
rious bourgeois parties on this or that issue. Since the ultimate
goals of these parties coincide, the main distinctions between
them are usually tactical. Skillful manipulation of the differences
between parties creates a semblance of democracy, enabling
the ruling class to change the contours of its policy without al-
tering its essence.

Through the mass media (the press, radio, television), which
have come to play a major role in political life under capitalism,
the ruling elite exerts an active influence on the consciousness
of diverse classes and strata. By manipulating that consciousness,
it influences the country’s public opinion as a whole.

Bourgeois politologists eulogise the democratic principles of
the capitalist state. The fierce competition among the monopo-

‘Vv. I. Lenin, “The State and Revolution”, Collected Works,
Vol. 25, 1977, p. 415.

127

lies, protection of the interests of oligarchic financial associations
in politics (through the system of lobbyism in parliaments, overt
and covert bribery, blackmail and other methods of influencing
the state apparatus), and various forms of ideological control
are often presented in their theories as a manifestation of the
“democratic” principles of pluralist bourgeois democracy, whose
vehicle is the capitalist state. Obscuring its essence as a dicta-
torship of the ruling monopoly elite and as an instrument for
suppressing the working classes, present-day non-Marxist theor-
ists maintain that the bourgeois state is gradually turning into
the organising link of the whole of economic and social life in
the society, with an “integration” of the interests of all its mem-
bers on the basis of scientific planning of production, regulation
of consumption, etc."

‘These conceptions are being widely used by reformism, op-
portunism and right-wing revisionism in their urge to moderate
the class struggle under present-day capitalism, to prove that there
is no need for the working people to fight for their vital
rights, and present the political development of capitalism as
its evolution towards “pure democracy”.

Life itself, however, refutes these essentially utopian illusions.
As actual historical experience shows, democracy in a class so-
ciety has always remained a class form of the organisation olf
political life. And it can never be otherwise. “If we are not to
mock at common sense and history,’ Lenin wrote, “it is obvious
that we cannot speak of ‘pure democracy’ as long as different
classes exist; we can only speak of class democracy.”

The development of political life in our day shows ever greater
authoritarian tendencies in the system of monopoly rule.
The bourgeois state, which advocates the interests of the whole
bourgeois class and does the will of the monopolies, turns into
a kind of committee for running the affairs of monopoly capital.
‘he actual policy of bourgeois states refutes the democratic free-
doms and values they proclaim, although many of these are writ-
ten into the constitutions of these states. Real rights and free-
doms there are concentrated solely in the hands of the bourgeoi-

“See Peter L. Berger, ‘Thomas Luckman, The Social Construction
of Reality, London, 1967, p. 18 ff.
V. I. Lenin, “The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kauts-
ky”, Collected Works, Vol. 28, 1977, p. 242.

128

sie, the class that exercises economic, political and ideological
domination, whereas for a vast majority of the working people
these widely advertised rights and freedoms are nothing but a
dead letter.

Millions of unemployed, growing numbers of homeless con-
stantly on the move in search of jobs and housing, the unavail-
ability for many people of adequate guaranteed medical ser-
vices and pension security in old age or disability, the fact that
specialised and higher education is beyond the reach of most
representatives of the less-well-off groups and strata, persecu-
tion of those who take part in progressive public and_ political
organisations, in the struggle for peace, against aggressive ten-
dencies in foreign policy and an anti-popular line in domestic
policy, and an offensive against all the gains of the working
people such is the real picture of the “guaranteed” rights
and freedoms which are being widely advertised but never put
into practice by the capitalist states.

Under state-monopoly capitalism, the development of politi-
cal life is determined by two interconnected, though diametri-
cally opposite tendencies. The first of these is connected, as it
has already been noted, with the toughening dictatorship of the
ruling classes, their growing domination and resort to violence,
which manifests itself both in the domestic and foreign policy
of the capitalist states, and the second, with the rise of a broad
revolutionary and anti-monopoly movement.

3. THE CLASS STRUGGLE AND REVOLUTION

In answer to the bourgeois states’ offensive against their vital
tights, the working classes of the capitalist society and_ their
allies come out in a common front of struggle against the reac-
tionary political line pursued in the interests of the monopolies.
Now as in the past, the working people's class struggle is spear-
headed against that line, aiming to limit the power of the mo-
nopolies and consolidate all the progressive forces advocating
peace, democracy and profound social transformations. ‘These
just goals of the working people's class struggle raise the ques-
uon about the ways of such transformations, which could put
an end to the sway of the monopolies, to the economic, political,
social and other forms of man’s exploitation of man.

9—1807 129

In its highest form, the class struggle is a political struggle
and leads to revolution, or a radical upheaval in the social and
state system. Revolution puts an end to the obsolete social sys-
tem and asserts a new and progressive one, eliminating private
property in the means of production and the exploitation of the
working masses.

Marxist social theory regards revolutions as the supreme man-
ifestation of the class struggle in an antagonistic society. In
elaborating the main propositions of the Marxist theory of the
class struggle, Lenin showed that since it is a political struggle
it inevitably raises the question of power. The first and essential
feature of a revolution is transition of state power from the hands
of one class to those of another.

The transition period: the question of power. Whereas the
bourgeois revolution brought to power the capitalist class and
established the capitalist system, which for the toiling classes
meant no more than a change of form of exploitation, the prole-
tarian revolution carried out by the working class in alliance
with all the other working people overthrows the power of the
ruling class together with the capitalist system. In The State
and Revolution, written on the eve of the October Revolution
in Russia, Lenin showed on the strength of a wide array of facts
that the working class can only ensure the working people's re-
volutionary gains by taking power into its own hands and estab-
lishing, in one form or another, a dictatorship of the proletariat.

What is the dictatorship of the proletariat? [s it no more than
coercion by the triumphant working class of all the other classes,
groups and strata of the society, “inevitable”? in economically
backward, underdeveloped countries?

Not at all. Petty-bourgeois and reformist theorists seek to prove
that there is “no need” for a proletarian dictatorship in coun-
tries where the traditions of bourgeois parliamentarianism make
it possible to rise to socialism without dismantling the old state
machine. But that is a grave delusion. ‘The experience of many
revolutions. including the defeat of the Chilean revolution in
1973, shows that the working masses have to pay dearly for such
delusions.

Having analysed mankind’s first experience of that kind, the
experience of the 1871 Paris Commune, Marx drew the follow-
ing conclusion: in the period of revolutionary transition from

130

capitalism to socialism, “the state can be nothing but the revo-
lutionary dictatorship of the proletariat’ 3

In the epoch of imperialism, the highest and final stage of
capitalism, Lenin scientifically substantiated the proposition that
the proletariat can attain ils goals in the course of a revolution
solely with the direct support of all the other, non-proletarian
strata of the working people. ‘The dictatorship of the proletariat,
he emphasised, is a special form of class alliance between the
proletariat as the vanguard of all the working people and their
numerous non-proletarian strata, an alliance led by the working
class. ‘The need for such an alliance, he pointed out, stems both
from the peculiarities of the period of revolutionary transforma-
tions and from its tasks: the tasks of overthrowing the old sys-
tem and strengthening the new, socialist system. Developing in
a fierce and ceaseless struggle against reformists and opportunists,
who denied the need for a proletarian dictatorship in the revo-
lutionary period, the doctrine of the dictatorship of the proleta-
riat became a touchstone for testing the attitude to Marxism of
those who supported it in practice. To consider oneself a Marx-
ist, Lenin wrote, it is not enough to recognise the class struggle;
it is also necessary to extend one’s recognition of the class strug-
gle to a recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

‘The dictatorship of the proletariat as a form of power in the
transition period not only implies an effort to overcome the resist-
ance of the bourgeoisie and its allies, who seck to prevent the
assertion of the new social system (or even their suppression, if
they come out against the people’s power), but also includes di-
verse types of constructive-——economic, organisational, cultural,
educational, foreign-policy (defence, struggle for peace )—activi-
ty by the state, aimed at strengthening its economic, political
and social foundations, at ensuring the necessary conditions for
the people's efficient labour in building a socialist society.

Vhe dictatorship of the proletariat is a whole system of state,
political and social bodies and institutions, united and directed
by the proletarian, Marxist-Leninist party. lts leading and guid-
ing role in the system of proletarian dictatorship and its con-

* Karl Marx, “Critique of the Gotha Programme”, in: Karl Marx
and Frederick Engels, Selected Works in three volumes, Vol. ‘Vhree, p.26.

* See V. 1. Lenin, “A Great Beginning”, Collected Works, Vol. 29,
p. 420.

9° 131

sistent policy based on scientific cognition and use of the laws of
social development are the crucial and decisive condition of the
proletariat’s historical mission.

Depending on the actual historical conditions of individual
countries, the forms of proletarian dictatorship can differ wide-
ly. But whatever the distinctions, its binding and characteristic
feature is that the whole process of — socialist construction is
directed by a Marxist-Leninist purty, the vanguard of the work-
ing class and all the working masses. The dictatorship of the
proletariat is a historically new type of democracy, qualitatively
distinct from all earlier types: democracy by the majority of the
people, based on their broad involvement in running the society
and the affairs of state.

Having generalised the experience of the proletariat’s revo-
lutionary struggle in Russia, Lenin saw the Soviets as a form
of the state of proletarian dictatorship. The Soviets are the
largest mass organisation which embraces all the working people
of the country.

After the Second World War, revolutions in a number of
European and Asian countries gave rise to a new form of pro-
letarian dictatorship: the people's democracy. Its specific feature
is the multiparty political system. ‘Ihe leading role in that sys-
tem belongs to the Marxist-Leninist party, with a broad popular
front uniting diverse classes, groups and strata which recognise
the leading role of the working class and its party. That form of
proletarian dictatorship is marked by gradual, peaceful develop-
ment, without any forcible expropriation of the propertied classes.

The changes in the world balance of forces in favour of so-
cialism and the international working class, and the upsurge of the
national liberation movement have extended the possibilities for
a peaceful course of the socialist revolution. But whether it will
develop along such a course largely depends on the degree and
intensity of the resistance put up by the bourgeotsic, on the
specific conditions of each people’s revolutionary struggle. That
is why the dictatorship of the proletariat can take diverse forms
in different countries.

The ultimate goal of any form of proletarian dictatorship is
to transform the society on revolutionary lines: to eliminate cap-
italism and build socialism. As Lenin noted, “All nations will
arrive at socialism—this is inevitable, but all will do so in not

132

exactly the same way, each will contribute something of its own
to some form ef democracy, tol some variety of the dictatorship

of the proletariat. ..7*

4. SOCIALISM AND DEMOCRACY

As socialisin is being built, the state of proletarian dictatorship
gradually evolves into a state of the whole people.

The whole people’s state is a political organisation of the
whole people led by the working class and its vanguard, the
conmmunist party. ‘The social base of the political system of so-
cialism keeps expanding and changing in qualitative terms, for it
is not only the working class, but also the peasantry and the
intelligentsia that become consistently socialist, ie., take a fully
working-class stand and assimilate the working-class ideology.

The main internal functions of the whole people's socialist
state are economic and cultural. Its external function is intrin-
sically free of territorial imperial ambitions, of an urge for ag-
gression, for the economic or political enslavement of other peo-
ples. Its major goals remain defence of the homeland and of the
socialist community countries, struggle for peace and stronger
international solidarity, support for the struggle of the oppressed
peoples, economic and cultural cooperation with all countries
aud peoples. ‘Then there are also the tasks of an irreconcilable
ideological struggle against bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideoi-
ogy alien to the socialist society, against any encroachments
upon the working people’s socialist gains, and against imperial-
ism.

The whole people’s state continues to deepen and perfect so-
cialist democracy. That process is expressed in:

the growing role of the organs of people’s power (the So-
viets of People’s Deputies) in the solution of economic, social
and cultural problems, in the efforts to involve all citizens in
running the affairs of the society and the state;

the overall development of democracy in solving produc-
tion and economic problems connected with planning and con-
trol of enterprise activity at the local level; in the USSR. that

"V. T. Lenin, “A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Econom-

ism”, Collected Works, Vol. 23, 1977, pp. 69-70.

133

process was particularly promoted by the Law on Work Collec-
tives. which gave the working people a greater say in the affairs
of their enterprises;

the growing role of the trade unions, of youth, cooperative
and other mass organisations, cultural and educational associa-
tions and creative unions in the discussion and resolution both
of state matters and those relating to the Soviet people’s daily
life.

The Communist Party remains the organising force. the core
of all the political, ideological and social work among the masses
aimed at promoting democracy under developed socialism. The
party’s importance as the political vanguard of the working class
and all the other working people has been growing and _ will
continue to grow as the developed socialist society is being per-
fected and advances towards communism.

The USSR has a one-party system.1 There is no need here
for other political parties, because the CPSU represents the in-
terests of the whole people—the working class, the collective
farmers and the working intelligentsia, rallying round itself all
the working people.

At the same time, other socialist countries (Bulgaria, Poland,
the GDR, Czechoslovakia) have a multiparty system. With the
Marxist-Leninist workers’ parties playing the leading role, the
other parties in each of these countries represent the specific
interests of separate groups and strata of the population and co-
operate with the ruling parties as an active link in the political
organisation of the socialist society.

So, no matter how hard certain critics seek to distort the
picture of political life under existing socialism, its diverse ex-
perience shows that there is no single “model” of political sys-
tem. On the contrary, there is a variety of forms of political or-

* There is also a one-party system in the socialist Republic of Romania.
In the USSR. such a system took shape after the October Revolution of
1917. but not as a result of suppression of other parties by force. as
some anti-Soviet and anti-communist ideologues allese. In the new con-
ditions, many of the them existing bourgeois and petty-bourgeois partics
began losing their social base, losing touch with the imasses, and so
quickly disappeared from the political scene. Some parlics put themselves
outside the law by their openly hostile activity against the So-
viet power, the power of the working people.

134

ganisation, reflecting the rich content of socialist democracy,
which exists for the people.

Socialist democracy is the highest type of political democracy.
Tt assures all citizens of real equality before the law, direct and
equal suffrage by secret ballot. Socialist democracy, whose social
basis consists of social property in the means of production, is the
groundwork for man’s true economic and social emancipation, For
the first time in mankind's history. socialism gives the working
masses access to independent involvement in state administration
through their activity in work collectives, through diverse public
organisations, the practice of nationwide discussion of draft laws,
and the people's control system. Apart from proclaiming §polit-
ical freedoms and socio-economic rights, the Constitution of the
USSR ensures reliable guarantees of these rights and freedoms
in practice. ‘That is the essential distinction between socialist and
bourgeois democracy.

As socialist democracy is deepened and extended in every res-
pect with the further perfection of developed socialism. the state
will eventually give way to communist social self-government,
which is already beginning to take shape.

* * *

An analysis of political life from the standpoint of the class
approach, which lies at the root of Marxist social theory, shows
the complexity of the problems of power, the state, forms of gov-
ernment, democracy, revolutionary transformations, ete., exam-
ined by that theory.

At the same time, the world revolutionary process in our day
shows these problems to be highly imperative. Examples of how
they should be studied in the light of the correlation and strug-
gle between classes are contained in the works of the founders
of Marxism-Leninism, in its social theory.

Chapter Six
SOCIAL REVOLUTION

We have already considered the prerequisites, motive forces and
uniformities of radical revolutionary change in history. Let us
now examine this question in greater detail.

The change of socio-economic formation is always a funda-
mental, qualitative leap, which affects all aspects of life in the
society, transforming its basis and superstructure. That is why
such leaps are called social revolutions.

1, SOCIAL REVOLUTION:
ESSENCE AND PREREQUISITES

In his preface to 4 Contribution to the Critique of Political
Economy, Marx wrote: “At a certain stage of development, the
material productive forces of society come into conflict with the
existing relations of production or this merely expresses the
same thing in legal terms -with the property relations within
the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From
forms of development of the productive forces these relations
turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution.’

Social revolution is a turning point in every sphere of the so-
ciely’s life without exception, in the whole social system. Such a
revolution does not occur all at once, but can last for years and
decades. One of its key elements is a political revolution, which
includes a fundamental transformation of the state system. Its
main goal is to change the society’s political system. Social re-
volution, which is a whole period of deep-going, radical trans-
formations in the society, spreads to all its spheres: qualitatively
new economic and social structures, political, legal, ideological
and other relations arise and develop in the society.

* Karl Marx. A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy,
p. 21.

136

As a fundamental, qualitative leap in the society's develop-
ment, social revolution means its total renewal. Although pre-
sent-day non-Marxist philosophy and sociology assert that the
theories of revolution are outdated because the society's develop-
ment today is nearly totally determined by the controlled in-
fluence of scientifically substantiated government policy on the
economy, ideology and politics, the process of radical revolu-
tionary transformations in the world continues to unfold. We
have witnessed numerous revolutions connected with the cisin-
tegration of the world colonial system and the emergence of
new independent national states in Asia, Africa and Latin Ame-
rica. Many of these anti-imperialist revolutions marked the be-
ginning of a new period in the life of the countries entering the
road of independent political, economic and social development,
the road of building the new society.

Marxist social theory brings out and explains the basic prere-
quisites and uniformities of revolutionary transformations in social
life. In giving a scientific explanation of the essence of social
revolutions, their role in mankind’s history, their origins and de-
velopment uniformities, Marxist theory invalidates the conceptions
that deny, underestimate or question the importance of social
revolutions. Present-day bourgeois sociologists keep making such
attempts, offering their own conceptions of managerial revotu-
tion, revolution in consciousness, sexual revolution, and so on.
All these attempts reveal one main tendency: a striving to substi-
tute pseudo-scientific deliberations about ways of “improving”
capitalism for the Marxist understanding of the essence of re-
volution.

Social revolution is a natural and law-governed phenomenon,
determined by the material conditions of life in the society, by
its internal development contradictions. These contradictions do
not manifest themselves right away, but accumulate gradually,
reaching a mature stage. The period in which these contradic-
tions mature is known as the period of preparation of social
revolution. In that period, the society does not stand. still and
its development does not cease: new productive forces emerge
and mature within the entrails of the old ones. and there are
changes in the relations of production, which influence the ba-
lance of class forces, the economy, ideology and culture (evolu-
tionary changes).

137

These gradual, evolutionary changes pave the way for a fun-
damental, qualitative leap forward, or social revolution.

In a correct assessment of the importance of evolutionary pe-
riods in the society's development (as periods of gradual and par-
tial changes, whose accumulation leads to the stage of funda-
mental transformations. to revolution), Marxist soctal theory em-
phatically rejects any attempts to reduce the process of social
development to evolutionary changes alone. Ever since the days
of Herbert Spencer, who laid the foundations of social evolu-
tionism, and right up to our day (theories of social evolution
connected with structural functionalism, etc.), non-Marxist sociol-
ogy has been inclined to dismiss social revolutions as “useless”
and even “harmful’.t Nevertheless, revolutions prepared by the
objective prerequisites of social development do occur.

‘The most important of these prerequisites is the conflict be-
tween the new productive forces and the old, obsolete relations
of production. In order to bring these production relations up
to the level of the productive forces, it is necessary to resolve
the conflict between them. In a society torn apart by antagonist-
ic contradictions, that conflict manifests itself in a collision be-
tween classes. The ruling class, which owns the means of produc-
tion. defends the old production relations and the social system
that rests on these, while other (revolutionary) classes strive to
overthrow that system, to replace it with a new and more prog-
ressive one. The conflict between these classes is ultimately re-
solved through social revolution, in the course of which radical
transformations take place in the economic, social, cultural and
other spheres of life.

In order fully to climinate the production relations which need
replacing and which prop up the old social system, the progres-
sive class. which is interested in completing the revolutionary
transformations, should win political power.

‘The question of state power and its passage from one class to
another, as it was noted above, is the main question of any rev-
olution, [It is not merely a matter of power changing hands,
as it usually happens in various superficial coups, which only
change the configuration of the groups in power. Such a trans-

* Spencer was the first bourgeois sociologist who, in identifying the
society with a natural living organism. spoke of revolution as a social
“di ”

isease”’.

138

fer of power is possible when one reactionary regime is replaced
by another. The question of struggle for power in the course of
a revolution is a question of overthrowing the power of the
outgoing social forces, primarily the ruling class, and establish-
ing the power of the class that is the hegemonic force in that
particular revolution, ‘The struggle in this case can either involve
coercion or not. ‘The concrete conditions of the revolution
engender concrete forms of the struggle for power. A revolution
can occur without an armed clash between classes, but its subse-
quent development and expansion could lead to sharp confronta-
tions between the winning and losing classes. which could result
in counterrevolutionary revolts. civil war, etc.

The Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia was relative-
ly bloodless, and for a few months the Soviet power literally
marched in triumph across the country. Nevertheless, the peace-
ful course of the revolution was soon disrupted by a civil
war and an armed intervention from abroad.

The development of social revolutions is determined by a
complicated set of internal and external contradictions. Internal
contradictions between antagonistic classes remain decisive, but
external contradictions (those connected with interstate relations)
can also have a considerable influence on the course of a rev-
olution, either slowing down or accelerating its development.
Some revolutions (such as national liberation revolutions) re-
solve both internal and external contradictions by destroying the
reactionary classes inside the country and, together with these,
the forms of enslavement imposed on the country by foreign cap-
ital with the help of these classes.

2. REVOLUTIONARY SITUATION

For a socia] revolution to take place, there should be definite
objective and subjective prerequisites and historical conditions,
for revolutions cannot be made to order or imported from out-
side. The sum total of objective conditions necessary for revolu-
tion creates a revolutionary situation.

A revolutionary situation is characterised by a whole num-
ber of symptoms. In analysing these, Lenin noted that a revolu-
tion is simply impossible without a nationwide crisis.! On the

*V. 1. Lenin. “ ‘Left-Wing’ Communism—an Infantile Disorder”,
Collected Works, Vol. 31, 1982, p. 85.

139

one hand, that means a crisis of the “upper classes”, i.e., an im-
possibility for the ruling classes to maintain their rule without
any change, and on the other, ferment among the oppressed,
working classes, a crisis of the “lower classes”, which do not
want to live in the old way any longer. In such a situation, the
want and misery of the exploited classes reach an extreme.

Vhe crisis conditions help to invigorate political activity among
the masses, stimulating their revolutionary mood.

So, the main symptoms of a revolutionary situation are: (1) a
crisis of the policy of the ruling classes, which can no longer
rule in the old way; (2) a worsening of the working people’s ma-
terial condition; (3) an upsurge in the independent political ac-
tivity of the working people. Revolutionary periods in history
are distinguished by rapid and profound social transformations
precisely because these transformations are carried out by the
masses. Mass action brings about the most radical socio-econom-
ic and political changes.

If a revolutionary situation is to culminate in a revolution,
the necessary objective conditions should be combined with a
mature subjective factor, i.e., the consciousness, ideological ma-
turity and good organisation of the progressive social class,
which acts in alliance with other classes and strata against the
policy of the ruling class.

A unity of objective and subjective conditions is the main law
of social revolution.

3. THE CHARACTER AND MOTIVE FORCES
OF REVOLUTIONS

Revolutions differ in social character, which is determined by
what kind of social contradictions are resolved by a particular rev-
olution; what social system is established as a result of its vic-
tory; what are the motive forces of the revolution; and who
plays the leading role in the revolutionary transformations.

Revolutions are usually headed by one particular class, which
is the leader, or hegemonic class, of a given revolution. That
class unites the other classes. groups and strata which are its
allies in the struggle for a radical, revolutionary transformation
of the society.

The social classes that carry out a revolution are its motive

140

forces. Vhe revolution’s motive forces and hegemonic class de-
pend on its character and on the historical conditions in which
it takes place.

The history of revolutions has known revolutionary uprisings
by slaves and serfs, bourgeois, hourgeois-democratic and national
liberation revolutions, and socialist, proletarian revolutions. Along-
side general features which are common to all revolutions,
each revolution has its own specific features. When similar tasks
are being resolved in different historical settings, the depth of
the social transformations, the motive forces, and the forms of
class struggle can markedly differ from one country to another.

The national liberation revolutions of our day are extremely
diverse in form and content. In uniting different social groups
and classes, which form a common front in the struggle for
political, economic and social independence, the revolutionary
movement of the young states of Africa, Asia and Latin Ame-
rica helps to deepen and develop the global anti-imperialist rev-
olutionary process.

Towards the highest type of social revolution, Ours is an epoch
of social revolutions. The world revolutionary process in our
day continues to develop with the peoples’ struggle for lasting
peace, independence and a better future, against any forms of
inequality and oppression.

The leading place in that process now belongs to socialist rev-
olutions—-the highest type of social revolution, effecting a tran-
sition from the capitalist to the communist socio-economic form:
ation.

Owing to its status in the system of capitalist production, the
working class is the vanguard and the main motive force of
the socialist revolution. As a radical transformation of all spheres
of the society without exception, that revolution lasts throughout
the whole fransition period, from the moment when the working
class wins political power to the building of socialism. ‘The first
necessary prerequisite of a socialist revolution is the take-over of
power by the working class and establishment of a proletarian
dictatorship. ‘That take-over provides a basis for all subsequent
economic, social and other transformations in the course of the
socialist revolution.

Depending on the historical conditions and on the balance of
class forces in a given society, the forms of socialist revolution

141

can differ markedly. It can follow either a peaceful or a non-
peaceful course. In the first instance, as in the East European
countries after the Second World War, the balance of forces
in favour of the working class was a prerequisite for a relatively
peacelul and gradual development of socialist revolutions. ‘he
peaceful way of revolution is now open to many countries in
view of the existence of the world socialist system, the balance
of forces in favour of socialism and progress, and the growing
might of anti-imperialist and democratic movements in the
world. But even here one cannot rule out a non-peaceful course
of the revolution in the event that the reactionary forces, the
propertied classes, deprived of their privileges, encroach upon
the working people’s gains or resort to open violence against
the masses. The working class and its allies should be able to
uphold and defend the gains of the socialist revolution.

(he socialist revolution creates all the necessary conditions
for a radical reconstruction of the society, making it possible to
resolve its economic, social and other conflicts and contradic-
tions.

‘Yo sum up, let us note that:

political problems occupy a central place in Marxist social
theory;

the elaboration of these problems by its founders and their
followers is among the generally recognised achievements of
Marxist analysis;

the Marxist-Leninist conception of the state is an instru-
ment for a scientific explanation of the power system under cap-
italism, the problems of revolution and the transition period,
the political organisation of the society under socialism, and
urgent problems of international relations.

Many political events in our day are connected with changes
in the society's cultural life. After all, social transformations
are simply impossible without changes in the sphere of culture,
without a spiritual renewal.

Chapter Seven
THE SOCIETY AND CULTURE

The problems of culture, its role and place in the society's life
have acquired special urgency. Present-day social development
involves significant changes in all spheres of life without ex-
ception, including culture.

Culture is studied by different sciences, such as ethnography,
sociology and anthropology, each under its own angle. In any
case, all of these analyse the functioning and development of
culture in the context of human life in the society. And that is
only natural, for the society and culture are closely intercon-
nected by numerous relations. These relations take shape be-
tween people, who create culture and transform the society in
which they live.

1. CULTURE: THE CONCEPT DEFINED

The diversity of cultural phenomena and the different approaches
to an analysis of culture are reflected in the plurality of the
concept of culture itself. In effect, it characterises any aspect of
human activity: labour and daily life, production relations, rest
and leisure, upbringing, education, science and art. Even in daily
usage culture may mean different things, which shows that
the phenomena it encompasses are highly diverse. But whatever
the distinctions between the various readings of the concept,
both scientific and conventional, one could say that culture is
always a definite result of human activity.

That is why the inital and most general definition of culture
is all that has been created by man as distinct from everything
connected with nature. Such a view makes it possible to see
culture in the unity of its material and spiritual aspects, and that
is important because not only pre-Marxist, but also many pres-
ent-day non-Marxist trends in philosophy and sociology present
the development of culture solely as a spiritual process, as the

143

history of the human spirit. In that way, spiritual culture is de-
tached from its causes: from material life and human activity,
from the producers of material and spiritual values.

Culture originated as a result of human production activity,
when people began to master the forces of nature, going over
from the use of ready-made natural products to the production
of material values. So, the basis for culture was provided by the
human labour process itself, whose development led to a demar-
cation between the material and spiritual spheres of production.

Material production embodied the power of human knowledge
(the means of production, instruments of labour, machinery, etc.).

Spiritual production created spiritual culture. One of its
components is the collective (social) consciousness, a special
world of ideas as distinct from the world of things. Spiritual
culture includes social psychology, ideology, science, art, politics,
philosophy, man’s ethical and aesthetic consciousness (the social
consciousness is examined in greater detail in Chapter Eight).

There is a close dialectical interconnection between material
and spiritual culture. Material culture has an ideological aspect
and, vice versa, spiritual culture has a material aspect, for many
spiritual phenomena (scientific knowledge, literature, fine arts,
etc.) have a definite material embodiment. All of these could
not have been created without material instruments and condi-
tions, without living human individuals. Just as material pro-
duction is impossible without the experience and knowledge of
those who are engaged in it, so the production of spiritual values
calls for definite material conditions.

Interpenetration of the material and the spiritual is thus a nec-
essary factor in the functioning of culture and its development.
Their interconnection is particularly evident in our day in such
a sphere of culture as scientific knowledge. As the integrating
element that brings together material and spiritual production,
science is the major spiritual source of material production.
Scientific knowledge accelerates the development of social pro-
duction, engenders ever new industries and helps to restructure
and renew the existing ones. The impact of science on progress
in various fields of technology and social production, on the life
of modern man is so great that a special concept -the sczentific
and technical revolution (STR)--has been introduced to char-
acterise that influence. In Marxist theory, the STR is seen as

144

a necessary prerequisite for the development of production and

culture as a whole.

Marxist social theory connects culture with living, creative
human activity. It emphasises the organic unity of the material
and spiritual aspects of human culture. Marx wrote in his Cap-
ital: “As in the natural body head and hand wait upon each
other, so the labour-process unites the labour of the hand with
that of the head.”? Material and spiritual values, human culture
are a natural result of that process.

The close interdependence of material and spiritual processes
in the development of culture was brought out by Lenin, who
deepened the Marxist view on cultural problems in examining
the ways and perspectives of social development in the 20th
century. He was the one who formulated and resolved a whole
range of crucial cultural problems, such as the problem of con-
tinuity in the development of spiritual culture or that of a cultu-
ral revolution as a major aspect (alongside economics and _pol-
itics) of the radical transformations in the society on the way
from capitalism to socialism.

After the October Revolution in Russia, Lenin focussed his
attention on these problems. In order to build a new society,
it is not enough to transform the economic basis and build a
new, socialist superstructure. It was necessary, Lenin wrote, crit-
ically to assimilate and put within the reach of the broadest
strata of the working masses the successes of science and technol-
ogy and the achievements of literature and fine arts accumu-
lated by mankind, constantly to develop and enrich these achieve-
ments. He emphasised that the solution of any economic, polit-
ical or other problems in the course of building socialism was
connected with the vigorous and creative activity of the toiling
classes, the prime productive force of the new society, with their
ability to carry on that construction on the strength of profound
knowledge and culture.’

And today, in the conditions of developed socialism in the
USSR, when it is particularly important to optimise social pro-
duction. to ensure a timely and competent solution of any econom-
ic issue, and to boost the initiative and consciousness of the

' Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. I, p. 476.
*See V. 1. Lenin, “The Tasks of the Youth Leagues’, Collected
Works, Vol. 31. p. 287.

10—1807 145

masses, matters of cultural policy have acquired particular so-
cial importance. The CPSU Central Committee and the Soviet
state have put that policy on a scientific basis, with due ac-
count for all that is valuable in this respect in the works of the
founders of Marxist social theory.

In turning to the initial prerequisites of human culture and its
development, which lie in the sphere of material production,
Marxist theory shows the multidimensional nature of the con-
cept of culture. From the Marxist standpoint, culture is a dia-
lectical unity of the results of human material and spiritual activ-
ity. That is why it can also be seen as a definite level in the de-
velopment of man and the society, since any aspect of human
activity in the society——material (labour and production culture,
technical level, etc.) or spiritual (development of the arts,
science and knowledge, their spread in the society)--—is also
characterised by a definite level of human mastery of the re-
sults of that activity.

So, culture is a historically determined level in the develop-
ment of man and the society, expressed in the types and forms
of the organisation of human life and activity, and in the ma-
terial and spiritual values being created. Such a definition of
“culture” supplements and specifies the definition given at the
beginning of this chapter (as all that is created by people as
distinct from that which they get from nature). It also makes
it possible to register the social specifics of various cultural phe-
nomena with a view to their interconnection. That is particu-
larly important, since culture in any society combines highly di-
verse elements: alongside progressive achievements, it also in-
cludes various elements connected with survivals of the past
(traditions, customs, ideas, notions, standards of behaviour,
etc.), with the contradictions that mark the relations existing in
the sphere of material and spiritual production.

Such contradictions in the life of the present-day capitalist
society are reflected in a polarisation of two cultures within it:
“highbrow”, or elitist culture, which exists for a select minority
(educated and privileged groups and strata) and so-called mass
culture, catering for “lowbrow” consumer demands and seeking
to instill into the minds of broad strata of the working people
simplified (and often openly primitive) views, ideas and life val-
ues. Presenting that polarisation as everlasting and intrinsic to

146

any society. non-Marxist philosophy and sociology of culture cis-
tort the actual state of affairs, so trying to vindicate capitalism.
under which the contradictions of material social production in-
evitably engender contradictions in the sphere of social conscious-
hess, spiritual life and culture as a whole.

Tn analysing the state of culture under capitalism and point-
ing out two opposite tendencies within it--a reactionary one,
expressing the interests of the exploiter elite, and a progressive
one, expressing the aspirations of the working people —Lenin
showed the main source of cultural contrasts in the bourgeois
society, which lies in the relations between its antagonistic classes.
These socio-class antagonisms are fully overcome under so-
cialism. As a socialist basis is being built, progressive changes
also take place in the ramified system of superstructural rela-
tions, which has a beneficial effect on the emergence and devel-
opment of a new, socialist culture.

We shall eventually return to the interconnection between the
processes of social reconstruction and cultural development un-
der socialism, and now let us take a closer look at the problem of
cultural contrasts. It remains an urgent issue under socialism as
well, where diverse survivals of the past are still present in ves-
tigial form, With the victory of a socialist revolution, these survi-
vals cannot be eliminated automatically. The “birthmarks” of
capitalism and earlier formations manifest themselves in eco-
nomic life, in the mentality and behaviour of a section of the
people. Hence the instances of a dishonest attitude to work and
to social property, anti-social behaviour, nationalist, religious
and individualist views, breaches of the socialist norms of com-
munity living and legality, of the new society's moral principles.
Socialist culture has been carrying on a tireless and_ resolute
struggle against these survivals. he development of socialist so-
cial relations, of the socialist way of life, and the gradual forma-
tion of the new man help to create an atmosphere of a generally
irreconcilable attitude to these survivals, so that they are being
gradually overcome.

The social content and value of a culture are determined by
the degree of its penetration into every sphere of human activ-
ity, relations between people, and social life as a whole. Such
is the angle from which one should look at the interconnection
between culture and the society, the correlation between culture

10* 147

and civilisation, and its place in the process of social develop-
ment.

Since the debate started by present-day non-Marxist philosoph-
ers and theorists of culture centres on these problems, let us see
how each of these is formulated and resolved in Marxist: social
theory.

2. CULTURE AND CIVILISATION
Idealistic theories, which regard culture solely from the angle of
the spiritual essence of its constituents, tend to contrast “culture”
and “civilisation”. Starting with the theories of Alfred Weber
and Oswald Spengler, such a contrast reflects a specific view of
the correlation between the material (civilisation) and the spi-
ritual (culture) in the life of the society. Culture as a special
spiritual entity, integral and continuous in its development, is
contrasted with civilisation as a world of science and technology
passed on from one society to another, a world of utilitarian,
standardised means and methods of meeting daily human needs.
Such contrasts, which can be traced back to the German philos-
ophy of life (Friedrich Nietzsche, Oswald Spengler, Georg
Simmel), are still used by anthropologically oriented trends of
non-Marxist philosophy and sociology to interpret the crisis ten-
dencies of culture and the society under capitalism. That is also
reflected in anti-technical and similar conceptions accentuating
the hostility to man of modern bourgeois culture and _ civilisa-
tion, which cannot meet his vital needs.

It was Marx and Engels who pointed out the fallacy of the
contrast between culture and civilisation, and between culture
and the society. ‘hey saw civilisation as a part of culture, as the
material expression of man’s creative and constructive activity,
showing the emergence of civilisation in the context of the his-
torical development of that activity and connecting that process
with the ever deepening division of labour in the society and the
emergence of classes. Civilisation, Engels noted, is that stage in
the development of the society “at which division of labour, the
resulting exchange between individuals, and commodity produc-
tion. which combines the two, reach their complete unfoldment
and revolutionise the whole hitherto existing society”.
~? Frederick Engels, “Dhe Origin of the Family, Private Property
and the State”, in: Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Selected Works
in three volumes, Vol. Three, p. 330.

148

The Marxist approach calls for an analysis of the type of ci-
vilisation connected with this or that socio-economic formation.
In accordance with that approach, the concept of “civilisation”
means a historically determined phase, or stage, in the develop-
ment of the society, the level of its material and spiritual culture.
Each socio-economic formation is marked by a corresponding
type of civilisation (the slaveholding, or ancient, civilisation, the
capitalist civilisation, etc.) and its own culture. That is why one
can single out different historically concrete types of culture.

Since the level of culture is determined by the total condi-
tions and prerequisites both of material and spiritual production
intrinsic to a particular socio-economic formation, a socio-histor-
ical analysis of culture is part of the study of any formation.
An analysis of culture in the context of each socio-economic for-
mation as a developing social system helps to understand the
specifics of the main stages in the development of mankind's cul-
ture. After all, the succession of these stages can be seen as a
succession of different types of culture.

The successive types of culture include: pre-class culture (the
culture of the primitive-communal society); the cultures of the
class-antagonistic formations (ancient, feudal and capitalist cul-
ture); and the culture of the communist formation (including
socialist culture).

Each of these major historical types of culture is determined by
the development level of material production, by the conditions
of human life in a given society, whose influence leads to changes
in people’s world outlook. in their mentality and behaviour,
their attitude to the surrounding world and their own creative
cultural endeavour, In other words, the development of culture
is determined by all the aspects of human social life and activity
in their totality.

The development of culture is a historically continuous pro-
cess. The source of its continuity is to be found in the goals and
results of man’s cultural creative endeavour. These are objective-
ly determined by the conditions of human vital activity and
are connected with the change of generations.

Tn touching upon the question of generations and their place
in social and cultural development, Marx and Engels noted that
the surrounding world “is not a thing given direct from all etern-
ity, remaining ever the same ,.. it is an historical product, the

149

result of the activity of a whole succession of generations, each
standing on the shoulders of the preceding one, developing its
industry and its intercourse, and modifying its social system ac-
cording to the changed needs’’.' So, the continuity of generations
provides a basis for continuity in the development of the society
and culture.

In dealing with matters relating to the continuity of culture
and its development, many non-Marxist philosophers and_ so-
ciologists in our day recognise that under capitalism, which is
going through a profound crisis of spiritual values, the link be-
tween the past and the present is being ruptured, cultural tra-
ditions are being violated. and culture is losing its continuity.
Noting that rupture, Daniel Bell looks for the sources of the
instability of present-day capitalism, the causes of its crisis in the
ever greater erosion of traditional moral, religious and cultural
values. According to him, the crisis of present-day culture is
due to the discontinuity of its traditions, which is a consequence
of the widening gap between the present and the spiritual ex-
perience of the past.?

Other non-Marxist philosophers and sociologists, advocating
“generation dynamics” in the development of culture and the
society which go back to the ideas and conceptions of Max
Scheler, José Ortega y Gasset and Carl Mannheim, are looking
for ways to overcome the crisis tendencies of cultural life under
capitalism through a complete and resolute break with the dis-
credited social and cultural values of the past. Among the most
insistent advocates of such a “break” were the ideologues of
the left-radical and student movements of the recent past, who
started out from the conceptions of Herbert Marcuse, Norman
O. Brown, Theodore Roszak, Paul Goodman, Timothy Leary
and other theorists of “counterculture”.

In accentuating the need to reject the values of bourgeois cul-
ture, by means of which the society integrates the individual into
the capitalist social organisation and turns him into an obedient
performer of alien “roles”, norms and instructions, the ideolo-
gues of youth “protests” were nevertheless unable to come up

‘Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. “The German Ideology”, in:
Karl Marx, Frederick Engels. Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 39.

See Daniel Bell. The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism, Basic
Books, New York, 1976, p. 100.

150

with a consistent programme for drawing the younger genera-
tion into the struggle for a fundamental reconstruction of the
capitalist society.’

3. TRANSFORMATION OF THE SOCIETY AND CULTURE

The problem of cultural continuity is closely tied in with the
question about the ways of transforming the society itself. A rev-
olution in the economic, political and other fields of life is
bound to entail deep-going, fundamental changes in culture, or
a cultural revolution.

The cultural revolution is a part of the socialist revolution.
which marks the transition from capitalism to socialism. Marx
and Engels did not make a special examination of cultural revo-
lution problems, although they clearly pointed out an approach
to their solution. In elaborating the theory of socialist revolu-
tion. Lenin devoted much attention to the question of cultural
transformations in the society. Thus, he spoke of such transfor-
mations in the course of building socialism in the USSR in an
article entitled “On Co-operation” (1923); he was also the one
who coined the term “cultural revolution”.

The proletariat, which scored a victory in the October Revo-
lution of 1917. had to rehabilitate the economy of young Soviet
Russia, devastated by the civil war and the armed foreign in-
tervention by the imperialist states, to organise labour and the
running of production on new lines, and set up cultural insti-
tutions to serve the interests of the broadest working masses. ‘To
fulfil these and other tasks of cultural construction in that pe-
riod, it was necessary to do a great deal of day-to-day work in
order to transform all aspects of life in the society, to form a
new attitude to work among its members, a new social discip-
line. and a new socialist consciousness.

Lenin connected the tasks of economic construction with those

' That was particularly pronounced in The Greening of America,
a book by Charles Reich, who developed many of the central ideas of
the ‘revolution in consciousness”, substantiating the essentially individ-
ualistic forms of the ‘‘countercultural’ protest of the young against
the moral standards of present-day capitalism, protest which is largely
confined to a struggle for a partial transformation of that society. with-
out its fundamental reconstruction (Charles Reich. The Greening of
America, Random House, New York, 1973).

151

of forming a new type of culture. He actually equated the con-
cepts of “communism” and “culture”, thus emphasising the im-
mense importance of cultural construction for the triumph of
socialism and communism.

In substantiating the major propositions of the programme
for building a new culture. Lenin deepened and developed the
Marxist understanding of continuity in the development of hu-
man culture in general. He resolutely rejected any attempts at
a “radical” denial of the cultural heritage of the past, showing
that it belongs to the whole people and that it can and must
serve cultural development of the masses. Lenin saw the formation
of a new and progressive culture of the whole people as a con-
dition of building socialism.

Lenin’s plan for a cultural revolution was meant to create
conditions for the formation of such a culture of the whole
people. ‘Vo form such a culture, it was first of all necessary to
sweep away the obsolete cultural traditions and principles in-
herited from the days when the society’s material and spiritual
life was still dominated by the reactionary classes. ‘These tradi-
tions were to be eradicated by a cultural revolution.

What is the cultural revolution?

It is a renewal of culture through fundamental social trans-
formations. ‘The cultural revolution marks a turning point in
the society's spiritual life, in its development. The goal of the
cultural revolution is to assert new and progressive ideals, con-
victions and spiritual values, and to educate a new man. That is
why. while sweeping away all that is obsolete and reactionary,
the cultural revolution also creates conditions for the spiritual
development of each individual and the society as a whole. which
would make it possible to preserve and strengthen the progres-
sive attainments of world culture. to put them at the service of
socialism and. at the same time, to invigorate the quest for new
and advanced forms, developing the social creativity of the work-
ing masses. By entrenching the achievements of the socialist rev-
olution in the economy, politics and ideology, the cultural rev-
olution creates the necessary prerequisites for an all-round up-
surge in the activity of the working people in the most diverse
fields of social life. for the spiritual development of each individ-
ual and the creative endeavour of the whole people.

All of that is confirmed by the record of the cultural revolu-

152

tion in the USSR and many other socialist countries. In spite
of different historical conditions, cultural transformations in each
of these countries have helped to strengthen the gains of the so-
cialist revolution; give the people access to the achievements of
world culture; accelerate political, social and other transforma-
tions and involve the working masses in running the society; stim-
ulate the scientific and technical creativity of the mas
promote literature and art; form a new type of individual and
create conditions for his all-round development.

Before the revolution, three quarters of the population of
tsarist Russia were illiterate. In the course of the cultural revo-
lution in the USSR, illiteracy was totally wiped out. In a rela-
tively short period (by the mid-1930s), the foundations were
laid for the broadest and most effective system of school, voca-
tional and higher education, At that time, none of the indus-

es. and

trialised Western countries had such a system. In our day. the
USSR and other socialist countries have the most developed and
democratic system of education, combining all-round theoretical
studies with the formation of labour skills and occupational
training. More than two-thirds of the Soviet population over
30 years of age have a higher or secondary (complete or in-
complete) education. The socialist society encourages people
(young people above all) in their striving to learn, to assimilate
general culture. The state creates conditions for successful edu-
cation on and off the job, providing students with grants and
various allowances, with free housing facilities, libraries, labo-
ratories and special equipment.

Apart from a free choice of occupation, the socialist state also
helps every graduate to find a job. School and other graduates
under socialism are never left without a job, as it often happens
in the capitalist countries. Together with their educational cer-
tificates they get a document which guarantees them a job in
the line they have chosen. In this way, the young are enabled to
make their contribution to the cause of the whole people from
their very first independent steps in the realm of labour, to per-
fect socialism and build a communist society.

The cultural revolution under socialism gave a powerful im-
pulse to the development of the national cultures of numerous
nationalities, many of which before the revolution did not even
have a written language of their own (in Russia, there were

153

about 50 such nationalities). The socialist cultural revolution
gave them access to the achievements of world civilisation and
culture. enabled them to develop education system, literature,
science and art. In our day, the USSR’s multinational socialist
culture encompasses the cultural achievements of all the coun-
try’s nationalities without exception, both big and small.

The record of socialist transformations in the course of the
cultural revolution in different countries shows that cultural re-
newal is a major factor in accelerating fundamental transfor-
mations in various spheres of social life. We have already seen
how the cultural revolution in the USSR had a direct and ben-
eficial influence on education, helped to put an end to the
age-old national backwardness of the small nationalities, whom
tsarism had doomed to ignorance. The cultural revolution entails
equally significant changes in the social and other spheres. It
helps to accelerate the transformation of the socio-class structure
towards ever fuller social homogeneity, since the access to edu-
cation, science and art given by socialism to all its citizens puts
an end to the privileges of some and the rightlessness of other
groups and classes in the sphere of culture, characteristic of cap-
italism. ‘The cultural revolution leads to greater cohesion be-
tween the working class, the peasantry and the people’s intelli-
gentsia, with the latter drawing new members from among the
workers and peasants.

The cultural revolution also has a significant influence on the
formation of a new way of life under socialism. As educational
standards go up, the people’s vital interests and requirements
change accordingly. Soviet sociologists have estimated that the
Soviet people spend one-half of their spare time on socially mean-
ingful cultural pursuits (reading fiction and scientific literature,
attending theatres, museums, exhibitions and concerts, engaging
in amateur art). Thus, annual theatre attendance is over 119
million (nearly the whole of the USSR’s adult population) ; the
annual figure for concerts is over 160 million, and for museums,
over 151 million.

Amateur art is a widespread activity in the USSR. The
country has almost 710,000 amateur art collectives, with roughly
19 million members. Over 60 million citizens are members of
sports teams and collectives, and even more go in for sports lo-
cally (in circles and at playgrounds in their housing areas).

154

All these are qualitative indicators of the level attained by
Soviet culture. The main goal of cultural work under socialism
has always been and remains the all-round development of the
individual, of all members of the society. Each of these figures
is indicative of the new society’s constant concern for every in-
dividual, for an improvement of working conditions and rest
facilities, a rise in material standards, and all-round spiritual de-
velopment.

Everything in the name of man, for the benefit of man—-such
is the main goal of the efforts to perfect and develop the culture
of mature socialism in the course of the advance to the classless
communist society of the future.

So, the cultural successes in the USSR and other countries
building a just society clearly refute the anti-Marxist invention
about socialism being “hostile” to culture.

Socialism helps to develop in every way all the progressive
elements of the cultural legacy left by earlier societies. In de-
veloping culture, socialism fills out the achievements of the past
with a new historical content, putting them within the reach

of every individual.
ee OX

Culture is an integral part of people's life in the society, a
result of their material production activity and their creative
spiritual endeavour.

Marxist theory regards culture as a historically developing
phenomenon, connected with a definite level of material and
spiritual production within the framework of concrete socio-eco-
nomic formations.

The social content and value of culture are determined by
its spread in every sphere of human activity and life in the
society.

The polarisation of culture in antagonistic societies is over-
come as a result of the socialist revolution, whose integral part
is a cultural revolution.

Socialism creates all the necessary prerequisites for accelerat-
ing the development of the cultural creative endeavour of the
masses, enabling every individual to assimilate the traditions and
achievements of progressive culture.

Chapter Eight
SOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS

Morality, science, art and other ideas and forms of social con-
sciousness play an important role in the spiritual life of the so-
ciety, irrespective of the predominant economic, political and so-
cial relations and of the type of culture.

Marxist social theory regards the collective consciousness as
an essential factor of the society’s life and development. In order
to get a correct idea about the society as an integral social or-
ganism which exists and develops in accordance with its own,
intrinsic laws, it is therefore necessary to understand its collective
consciousness, its specifics, structure and role in the society’s
life.

1. SOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS: ITS

STRUCTURE AND ESSENCE
In the light of the materialist answer to the basic question of
philosophy, social consciousness (collective consciousness) is a
reflection of the actually existing diverse conditions of joint hu-
man life, of people’s collective being. As Marx and Engels spec-
ified in The German Ideology, “consciousness [das Bewusstsein |
can never be anything else than conscious being [das bewusste
Sein} ... men, developing their material production and _ their
material intercourse, alter, along with this their actual world, also
their thinking and the products of their thinking. It is not con-
sciousness that determines life, but life that determines conscious-
ness”!

Social consciousness reflects people's joint life in the society,
their social being with all its aspects and relations. That reflec-
tion of being by human cosciousness is an active, creative proc-

* Karl Marx, Frederick Engels. Collected Works, Vol. 5, pp. 36, 37,

156

ess. As they come to understand through their consciousness
the surrounding reality and the conditions of their social being.
people set themselves diverse practical tasks aimed at changing
these conditions and transforming the society, and then realise
these tasks. In this way. through their consciousness and activity
people exert an active influence on social development.

The close connection between people's social being and their
collective consciousness is dialectical. The dialectics of being and
consciousness manifests itself in every sphere of human life, start- |
ing from the production of material values and the relations |
into which people enter in that process and ending with the
spheres of social consciousness itself.

Whereas social being in the precise sense of the word is the
society's production and economic activity (whose material ve-
hicle are the productive forces and the economic basis, which
ultimately determine all the other types and forms of human
activity in the society), social consciousness is the totality of all
the forms and aspects of spiritual life in the society. Social being
is the main object directly reflected by social consciousness. And,
just as the society itself cannot be reduced to a sum total of the
individuals living in it, social consciousness, which reflects their
joint being, is not a mere aggregation of the views, ideas and
notions of each of them. It is a complex and independent mul-
ti-level formation, which has its own structure, and which changes
and develops according to its own laws.

Non-Marxist philosophy and sociology, which absolutise the
role of consciousness in social life, often confine their interpre-
tations of the collective consciousness to the sphere of the func-
tioning of individuals’ views and ideas. From these positions,
existentialist and phenomenological sociology, and interaction-
ism interpret social consciousness solely as the result of a ‘“‘dia-
lectical interplay” of individual consciousnesses, which provides
a basis for the “social construction” of reality, i.e., for a definite
picture of the society, a set of notions about it, which are fixed I
in the consciousness of its members, being variously shared and
supported by them.’ Such an approach in effect equates social

"See, for instance, Peter L. Berger, ‘Thomas Luckmann. The So- |
cial Construction of Reality. Theatise in Sociology of Knowledge, Peng-
uin Books, London, 1971, Chapter 1.

157

being and the collective consciousness that reflects it, since social
reality is presented as a result of the activity of individual con-
sciousnesses. And that is a fundamental mistake.

The faultiness of such a stand was shown by Lenin in his
Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, in which he demonstrated
that in all circumstances “consciousness is only the reflection
ol being”.

So what is social consciousness? What are its main forms?
Let us try to answer each of these questions.

As a relatively independent, integral formation, social con-
sciousness includes all the ideas, views, theories, habits, customs
and social feelings which reflect various aspects of people’s col-
lective life. The diverse conditions of their life in the society,
the complex and often contradictory patterns of social reality
are reflected in social consciousness. It includes the most diverse
views and notions (political, ethical, scientific, religious, philo-
sophical, aesthetic, etc.), both existing on the basis of individual
and everyday consciousness, collective psychology, and of various
theoretical views fixed in ideology.

Individual consciousness is one of the direct sources of social
consciousness. As a mobile totality of the interests, thoughts,
views and moods of particular individuals, individual conscious-
ness reflects the complex interaction between the social environ-
ment, the society in which they live, and their immediate sur-
rounding, or micro-environment.

The individual’s self-consciousness—an awareness of oneself,
of one’s place in the world, and one’s attitude to the society,
class and group with which one is connected——is a major part of
individual consciousness.

Individual and social consciousness are closely interconnected.
That interconnection reflects the dialectical unity of the partic-
ular (individual consciousness) and the general (collective con-
sciousness).

Under the influence of the immediate conditions of joint hu-
man life, and on the basis of the views, habits, feelings and no-
tions of various groups, classes and nations there emerges a spe-
cial form of social consciousness: collective (social) psychology.

*V.T. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, 1977. p. 326.

158

Consciousness at that stage is still largely spontaneous, although
even at that level a group. class or nation can have an aware-
ness of its interests and express these in the form of definite
feelings, illusions and moods (such as individualistic inclinations
of the petty bourgeoisie; the sense of collectivism and cohesion
in the working class, which rallies it to fight against the exp-
loiters; and so on).

At the level of social psychology, the consciousness of a class
does not as yet rise to theoretically grounded notions about its
place and role in the society. ‘(he formation of the working
class, for instance, included its evolvement from a class “in
itself”, when its feelings of hatred for the bourgeoisie induced
it to rise up in struggle against the latter for its economic interests, |
into a class “for itself”, with a growing class consciousness, organ-
isation, and assimilation of the ideas of scientific socialism, of
the socialist ideology. At that stage of development, the working
class already realises its role and its historic mission.

Together with everyday consciousness (people’s everyday em-
pirical notions about themselves and the surrounding world),
social psychology is one of the sources of ideology, which is a
system of theoretical views, ideas and convictions of a definite
class (political, legal, ethical, religious, aesthetic, etc.). Through
ideology, the realities of the social being of a given class and |
the society as a whole find a systematic, theoretical reflection in
the collective consciousness. The ideology of a class entrenches
and crystallises the views of that class, serving as a guide for
its activity in the surrounding world. Distinctions between class
ideologies stem from the objective distinctions in the status of
classes in the society, from their differing vital interests. That
is reflected in a specific way in the ideological struggle, which
permeates different aspects of life in an antagonistic-class society,
including the sphere of social consciousness. |

So, the source of the ideas, views and theories that form
social consciousness lies in social being itself, in the unity of its
diverse aspects. Social consciousness is the whole spiritual life
of the society, all its levels and forms taken together. It includes
the consciousness of individuals, groups and classes, their feelings,
moods, various forms of rational consciousness (including natu-
ral, technical and social sciences), collective psychology and
ideology. The main forms of social consciousness include politi-

159 |

cal consciousness, legal consciousness, morality. science, art. philo-
sophy and religion.

Each of these relatively independent forms of social conscious-
ness is connected in its own way with social being, with its di-
verse aspects, and has its specific features. At the same time, there
is a general, fundamental Jaw which determines the nature
of that connection.

Any form of social consciousness reflects social being and is
secondary with regard to that being. In other words, social being
is primary with regard to social consciousness and fully deter-
mines it.

That law helps to understand the specifics, place and _ sig-
nificance of social consciousness in human life: it is not human
consciousness that “forms” the society and determines the course
of its development but, on the contrary, social being and
people's material production activity that engender their views,
ideas and theories. Mankind’s history has often shown how
changes in the sphere of material production entailed changes
in the society's spiritual life, as some ideas, views and notions
gave way to more progressive ones.

2. INDEPENDENCE OF SOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS.
ITS ROLE IN SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

The law which determines the role of social being with regard to
social consciousness, discovered by Marx and Engels, enabled
them to see social consciousness as a relatively independent phe-
nomenon, which cannot be reduced to a direct dependence on
the conditions of human material production activity. The crit-
ics of Marxism accused it of an attempt to reduce the whole di-
versity of social processes, including those of social consciousness,
to economic laws, in order to avoid examining the specifics of
social processes. But Marxism has never claimed a direct, auto-
matic dependence of social consciousness on the conditions of
social being. The urge to postulate such a dependence was solely
characteristic of those who vulgarised the key propositions of the
Marxist theory. In our day. it is a feature of so-called “neo-
Marxism”, many of whose representatives share the views of vul-
gar sociology, insisting on direct connections and a direct cor-
respondence between the processes unfolding in the basis (eco-

160

nomic contradictions) and in the superstructure of the present-
day capitalist society (contradictions in ideology, art, etc.).

A striving to detect direct analogies between economic struc-
tures and the changes in the sphere of social consciousness is
often manifested by Western sociologists of literature and_ fine
arts, Which leads them to conclusions that have nothing in com-
mon with the Marxist understanding of the specifics of spiritual
life. The sociology of art studies the social nature of the rela-
tions between art as a reflection of social being and the society
itself. Mhat can adequately be done solely on the basis of Marxist
dialectics, which makes it possible to see the correlation between
the various aspects of the phenomenon being studied. A different
approach to the analysis of these relations is displayed by re-
searchers who are influenced by the conceptions of ‘Theodor
Adorno and Herbert Marcuse, and especially Lucien Gold-
mann’s “genetic structuralism’, trying to see the structure and
language of works of literature and fine arts as a direct reflection
of the social relations existing in the sphere of material produc-
tion under capitalism. ‘The attempts to trace such direct depen-
dences distort the true mechanisms of social reflection.

Social consciousness is relatively independent, for in its de-
velopment it can either lag behind or outpace social being, and
is an active force that influences changes in the latter.

Human consciousness can lag behind the changes in the con-
ditions of jot human life because of the tenacity of old views
and ideas. Under capitalism, these are objectively preserved by
the mass media (the press, radio and television), which are an
instrument in the hands of the propertied classes.

But even with the establishment of a new social system as a
result of revolution, that is, with a radical change in the condi-
tions of social being, human consciousness does not change auto-
matically and can retain diverse survivals of the past, obsolete
views, etc.

At the same time, social consciousness can outpace social de-
velopment. Tlere are two examples. lirst, an analysis of the ten-
dencies of social development under capitalism enabled Marx,
Engels and Lenin to formulate and substantiate a theoretical
forecast which is being confirmed decades later by the main
lines of mankind’s advance towards socialism and communism.
And second, in the conditions of economically backward coun-

11—1807 161

tries (as in 19th-century Germany or Russia) some progressive
works of literature and art far outpaced social development, for
they expressed a progressive social ideal.

The relative independence of social consciousness also man-
ifests itself in the contmnuily of the development of ideology. ‘The
class that wins in a revolution does not discard the achievements
of the spiritual culture of the past, but puts them at the service
of the new social system. From the ideological heritage and the
culture of the past, each class takes that which can serve its
interests, Reactionary classes cling to obsolete ideals and try to
impose them on the society in which they are still in power,
whereas progressive classes assimilate the best achievements of
spiritual culture and put these at the service of the society as
a whole.

So, social consciousness plays an active role in the society’s
life and development. Acting in a conscious way, people exert
a great influence on social life by their ideas, views and theories.
Social consciousness also performs an active role in social life
because it brings people together, directs them in the solution
of various problems, and is a mobilising factor in their social
activity. A major point to emphasise is that the role of ideas in
social life depends on the class which has generated these ideas,
on how they reflect the realities of the given society and the in-
terests of the people. Progressive ideas, if they express the funda-
mental interests of the toiling classes, can have a decisive effect
on the whole course of social development (but only if these
ideas can be assimilated by the popular masses). Such ideas in
our day are the ideas of the fairest society socialism and com-
munism- theoretically substantiated and developed by Marx.
Sngels and Lenin. ‘Vhese ideas are now being translated into
practice in the USSR and other socialist community countries,
and also in quite a number of developing Asian, African and
Latin American countries that are following the road of socialist
construction.

Social consciousness can also manifest itself through a nega-
tive, hindering influence on social development. Such a negative
influence is exerted, in particular, by the reactionary ideas and
theories being spread by the ruling classes of the capitalist so-
ciety. These ideas and theories distort reality and thus serve to
divert the masses and their allies from a consistent struggle for

162

progressive social transformations. A major role is also played
by religious ideas and views, which on the whole have a simi-
lar effect on human minds.

Consequently, social consciousness is one of the crucial factors
influencing the society's life and the course of its progressive
development.

3, THE FORMS OF SOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS |

‘The diversity of the forms of social consciousness derives from
the diversity of the spheres of human life in the society. Po-
litical, legal, ethical, religious, aesthetic, scientific and philosoph-
ical consciousness reflects objective social reality from its own,
special angle. But the influence of each of these forms on social
consciousness as a whole goes beyond the sphere of its function-
ing. ‘There is a close interaction and cross-influence between the
various forms of social consciousness, something that is due, in
particular, to their structure.

The structure of each of these forms includes spiritual entities
on two levels. The first of these is connected with the function- |
ing of ideas, views, notions, etc., on the level of social psycholo-
gy, and the second, on the level of ideology. ‘The proportions
between these two levels differ markedly from one form of social
consciousness to another. In philosophy, for instance, the ideo-
logical layer is more significant than the socio-psychological one,
whereas in the sphere of art (aesthetic consciousness), there is
an opposite picture. ‘he correlation between the two constituent
structural Jevels socio-psychological and ideological--in each |
form of social consciousness affects the specifics of the reflection
of reality by these forms. |

At the same time, all of them are components of the society’s
superstructure, so that the essence, content, nature and place of
each of these forms are ultimately determined by the specifics of
the society’s economic basis. Differing from the rest in subject- |
matter and content, each of these forms deals with “its own”
layer of social being. he main distinction between these forms
lies in the mode in which they reflect collective being: juridical
law in the legal sphere, theoretical abstraction in science, artistic
image in literature and art, etc. |

1" 163

we

To understand the specifics of these distinctions, let us take
a closer look at each of the forms of social consciousness.

Political consciousness. As Marx and Engels analysed in The
German Ideology the question of the relative independence of
social consciousness, they showed the social nature of the divi-
sion of Jabour into material and spiritual and established a deep-
ening differentiation of the latter, its conversion into a monop-
oly of the ruling class, in whose interests its ideologues develop
pure theory, philosophy, theology, morality, etc.

Political consciousness reflects the interests of defimite social
classes in the form of their political views, moods, ideas, and so
on. Political consciousness is a totality of the views, illusions,
ideas and theories of different classes reflecting their attitude to
State power, lo the activity of parties, classes, nations and states.

In a class society, the political consciousness of each class is
closely tied in with its economic status. Directly reflecting and
expressing the economic interests of a given class, conditioned
by its social status, political consciousness determines the tasks
and goals of its struggle to realise these interests.

Political consciousness functions on two planes: first, as a man-
ifestation of the psychology of a class (i.e., in the form of so-
cial consciousness which takes shape spontaneously among its
members under the direct impact of the conditions of their so-
cial being); and second, as a political ideology specially elabo-
rated by the ideologues of the given class.

The political ideology of a class is a systematised theoretical
expression of ils views on the political organisation of the socie-
ly, the forms of state, the relations between diverse social groups
and classes within tls framework, their place in the society's life,
and the relations of the given state with other states. ‘Vhese views
are recorded in the documents adopted by the state, the various
parties and public organisations (slogans, programmes, declara-
tions, constitutions and manifestoes). In their activity, they are
guided by the theoretical propositions and conclusions written
into these documents, advocate and seek to implement them.

The character of the political slogans, ideas, doctrines and
theories constituting the political ideology of a class is determined
by its economic and social interests.

The predominant exploiter classes of antagonistic societies,
which are interested in perpetuating the relations of economic

164

inequality and oppression, use outwardly democratic slogans to
spread a reactionary political ideology which justifies their privi-
leged status and their striving for economic expansion and polit-
ical domination over other, as well as their own, peoples. ‘Vhe
political theories and doctrines of the ruling circles of the impe-
rlalist states are a concrete expression of such interests. That lar-
gely explains the profound and chronic crisis of the political
thought of present-day capitalism and of its policy, which cuts
across the vital aspirations of the people, of the working masses.

The political ideology of imperialism in our day is contrasted
with socialist ideology, which expresses the basic interests of the
toiling classes, including the interests of the classes that are sub-
jected to exploitation under capitalism.

An irreconcilable struggle is under way between these two po-
litical ideologies. Expressing the interests of all the working
people, the political ideology of socialism asserts and exercises
the principles of proletarian internationalism, friendship and
cooperation between peoples, solidarity of all the progressive
forces in the struggle to maintain and strengthen peace and to
remove the threat of a nuclear war posed by imperialist policy.

The political ideas of the working class and the policy of
socialist states are based on a scientific, Marxist-Leninist under-
standing of the laws and motive forces of social development
and fully accord with the vital interests of the peoples of all
countries, regardless of any economic, socio-political, historical
and other distinctions between them. That explains the appeal
of socialist foreign policy, the active support extended to it by
all those who cherish peace, democracy and socialism, Since
they meet the interests of all the working people, political ideas
under socialism, just as the policy of socialist states, exert an
immense positive influence on all aspects of social life, help to
perfect them, and promote a rapid and purposeful development
of the economy and culture, and an improvement of the people’s
wellbeing.

Legal consciousness. Political relations are closely connected
with legal relations. which are regulated by law and are controlled
by legal consciousness.

Law is the tolality of juridical norms (laws) which are binding
for all members of the society. Observance of these norms, which

165

provide a basis for a legal order (law and order) correspond-
ing to the interests of the predominant class, is ensured by the
state.

The legal relations of a given society are reflected in its legal
consciousness and the — predominant legal ideology. As a. class
phenomenon, /egal consciousness tncludes the views and notions
of a given class which express its attitude to law and order, and
also tts assessment of diverse phenomena in the society's life
from the standpoint of the existing systent of justice and legis-
lation.

Just as political consciousness, legal consciousness exists on
two levels: psychological (in the form of notions about what is
lawful and unlawful) and ideological (in the form of theoreti-
cal constructions).

A systematic theoretical expression of the legal consciousness
of a class is its legal ideology, which concentrates its views on
the nature and purpose of legal relations, norms and institutions,
on matters of legislation, the powers of the courts and the procu-
rator’s office. etc., in order to defend or assert the legal order
that meets the interests of that class.

Just as any other form of theoretical knowledge, legal ideolo-
gy in any society is historically transient. It takes shape in a
class society as a means of entrenching the economic rule of
some classes over others on the basis of legal norms and enact-
ments. Legal consciousness and legal ideology thus not only
reflect, but also consolidate the predominant economic relations
in the society.

Under capitalism, as in any other society divided into antag-
onistic classes, the predominant legal ideas are those of the ex-
ploiter class, which uses them to impose its will on the other
classes. The legal consciousness of that society is extremely het-
erogeneous. Alongside general human content (denunciation of
violence, robbery, personal abuse, etc.), it contains the clashing
legal consciousnesses of the most diverse classes. While advocat-
ing equality and justice, the bourgeoisie also seeks to camou-
flage its predominant position with the help of diverse theories
substantiating the supra-class nature of legal enactments. As for
the classes and groups that are economically and politically de-
pendent on the bourgeoisie, these develop their own legal con-

166

sciousness, their own views on laws and relations between peo-
ple, classes, nations and states.

Under socialism, on the contrary, legal consciousness is highly
homogeneous, for it expresses and serves the interests of the
whole people, so exerting a most beneficial influence on the life
of the society (helping to root out survivals of the past, to raise
the working people's consciousness and creative activity ).

Moral consciousness. Morality plays a major role alongside
law in regulating human behaviour in the society.

Morality is a special form of social consciousness comprising
all the norms, feelings and notions by which people are guided
in their mutual relations, both in their personal and social life.

‘The specifics of the reflection of reality by that form of social
consciousness is evident from such categories as good and evil,
duty, justice, dignity, happiness, and so on. Each of these cate-
gories reflects definite moral feelings and notions that exist both
in the everyday (conventional) moral consciousness of the socie-
ty as a whole and in the theoretical constructions of moral ideol-
ogy, or ethics, which entrench the moral values of definite social
classes and groups.

Moral notions exist and are sustained by the force of habit,
public opinion, traditions and customs. At the same time, the
effectiveness of moral norms, values and ideals depends on the
individual's inner motivations.

Moral consciousness plays an exceptionally important role in
regulating human behaviour in the society. Morality regulates
human behaviour in all spheres of social life without exception.
But its effectiveness differs from one sphere to another. That
is why in any of these-the sphere of everyday life, labour, fam-
ily relations, etc. unwritten moral norms which are not en-
shrined in any normative documents are supplemented with other
regulators of behaviour (juridical laws, organisational rules, in-
structions, administrative orders, official directions, and so on).
Moral regulation of human behaviour is thus closely tied in
with the influence on that behaviour of social norms operating
in other spheres of people’s life and activity (economics, poli-
tics, law, etc.). At the same time, the moral content of human
behaviour is not derived from these norms and is not connected
with these in any way, but is determined solely by socially con-
trolled moral requirements-— by people’s moral consciousness and

167

self-consciousness, which includes convictions, leelings and con-
science.

As a historical entity, morality is closely connected with social
development. In a society divided into antagonistic classes, there
can never be one and the same morality for all classes. Along-
side the morality of the ruling classes there is a morality of the
deprived and oppressed classes. The struggle between these
classes in the antagonistic society also runs through their moral
consciousness and is reflected in a clash of the moral ideals
and convictions of people belonging to different classes, in mor-
al conflicts which permeate the spiritual life of the society. It
is only under socialism, with the elimination of class antagonisms
that the necessary prerequisites arise for a coherent morality of
the toiling classes, for an assertion of the principles of communist
morality. which regards man as the supreme value and _ estab-
lishes new relations between people, based on mutual assistance,
respect, collectivism and comradeship, on each individual’s high
consciousness and a sense of patriotic, Jabour and moral duty
to the society.

In our day, morality has an active influence on all spheres of
social life without exception (from the economy, where people's
attitudes to their labour determine its results, to politics, ide-
ology. and so on), in which moral judgements (approval or con-
demnation) of human activity often determine its direction.

Religion. In contrast to other forms of social consciousness,
religion is a false, distorted reflection of being in human con-
sciousness. “All religion.” Engels wrote, “is nothing but the fan-
tastic reflection in men’s minds of those external forces which
control their daily life. a reflection in which the terrestrial forces
assume the form of supernatural forces.”?

Religion exists in the form of the everyday religious conscious-
ness (which includes religious notions, feelings and illusions
which reaffirm one’s faith in the supernatural_the other world.
gods, their ability to work miracles), and religious ideology,
which is a product of the theoretical substantiation and system-
atisation of these illusory views and ideas about the world.

Religion is primarily faith in the supernatural. It is the false
notions connected with such faith that give a specific, religious

" Frederick Engels. Anti-Diihring, p. 374.

168

tinge to people's emotional and mental attitude to the surround-
ing reality. Phat attitude is strengthened by religious feelings,
rites and ceremonies (prayers, offerings, etc.).

Religion as a form of social consciousness includes religious
notions, feelings and acts. ‘The content of these components
changes together with the conditions of religious practice, which
depend on the conditions of life in the society and its develop-
ment. Religion is a historically transient phenomenon.

Art. This form of social consciousness reflects reality in artist-
ic images. Art reflects reality, with all its properties and quali-
ties, helping people to get a decper understanding of the world.
As a means of artistic cognition and evaluation of reality, art
is a powerful instrument of moral, political and artistic edu-
cation,

The multiform properties, aspects and phenomena of reality,
which are the subject-matter of art, and the diverse modes of
their artistic reflection determine the various types of art: lit-
erature, architecture, sculpture, opera, ballet, painting, music, cin-
ema, and so on. There are many different genres of art, within
which one can trace the development of separate schools, trends,
styles and creative manners of the artistic comprehension of life.
A refraction of life through the prism of individual human feel-
ings. aspirations and interests characterises the image-bearing
artistic reflection which brings out the general and essential fea-
tures of reality.

Tt is precisely by portraying the unique and inimitable spe-
cifics of life, which art shows by typifying it in its artistic images,
that it attracts people. irrespective of age. moral convictions or
social status.

The emergence and development of art is closely connected
with human labour activity. In producing material values, man
not only transformed the world, but also transformed his own
self, developing and perfecting his creative abilities. With the
growing division of labour, the connection between production
and diverse types of art became ever more complicated. That
connection of art with man’s material, production activity still
remains in our day, although in mediated form.

As a form of social consciousness, art has a complex struc-
ture which includes these components: aesthetic feelings. percep-
tion and taste, aesthetic views and notions; aesthetic theories

169

which substantiate definite socially meaningful ideals of art, its
tasks and purposes.

Art does not exist on its own, but performs certain functions
in the life of the society. The most important of these is its
ideological and cognitive function, for art does not simply re-
Hect or copy life. but seeks to explain it. to bring out and eval-
uate the content of processes unfolding in reality. In arousing
people's emotions, it also arouses their thoughts, generates new
ideas and casts a new slant on “conventional”, habitual things.
In that way. art invigorates man’s creative spirit, his conscious-
ness and self-consciousness.

That is why art is always social. concrete and partisan, In a
class society, it has a class character. There can never be any
“pure” art, or “art for art’s sake”. All the attempts to create an
art of that kind have merely demonstrated the striving of the
reactionary classes to make art serve their own interests, con-
nected with a suppression of progressive elements in the ideology
and culture of their society.

In a class society, art is a vehicle not only of moral, but also
of political ideas. History shows that advanced, progressive and
perfect art. which advocates lofty human ideals, always outlives
its epoch, its class and its creator, and becomes an asset of world
culture. Continuity in the development of art means that, as it
develops from one epoch to another, it retains and passes on all
the best and valuable of its achievements.

Truly realistic, progressive art is always rooted in the people
and is connected with the people’s life. The achievements of
world literature, music, painting, etc., preserve the national ar-
listic experience of the people that fostered their creators, and
carry it to other peoples, helping to bring together and promot-
ing mutual understanding between individuals, cultures and
epochs.

Science. This form of social consciousness is a system of man’s
knowledge about the surrounding world -nature, the society and
thought.

As compared with art, which is characterised by artistic, per-
sonally specific methods of typifying the experience of cognition,
science reflects the world in “depersonalised”, abstract concepts,
categories and laws, whose validity can only be tested in practice.

In its development, science keeps differentiating and deepen-

170

ing its knowledge. That is why it exists in the form of numerous
particular scientific disciplines, each of which studies a definite
sphere of reality (its subject-matter). There is also a narrower
division of labour among researchers within a single discipline,
diverse schools, trends, and so on.

All the sciences are now divided into social (philosophy, so-
ciology, economic, historical and other sciences) and natural
(inathematical, physical, biological and other sciences). Numer-
ous applied technical sciences, which service the purely practical
needs of technology and industrial production, are adjacent to
the fundamental natural disciplines.

The development of science in our day is marked both by its
differentiation and its integration: a synthesis of the experience
of diverse sciences and the emergence of new scientific disciplines
(like biological mechanics or cybernetics). Many significant
discoveries are now being made at the junction of different sci-
ences, especially in areas of natural science where biologists, phys-
icists, mathematicians, chemists and geneticists carry on joint
research. Progress in the natural sciences makes it possible to
give a totally new explanation to many phenomena, and that
new knowledge helps to expand man’s practical influence on na-
ture.

Having stemmed from practical human requirements, science
develops with a view to the social importance of these require-
ments. It has a particularly strong impact on the society in the
conditions of the ongoing scientific and technical revolution,
when successes in automation, power engineering, electronics,
biotechnology and cybernetics radically alter the earlier concep-
tions of production processes. Science also changes the nature
of labour, which is increasingly automated and filled out with
intellectual content. And that makes it necessary to restructure
the whole system of training and use of specialists in the
economy. In this way, the development of the productive
forces necessitates a steady perfection of the relations of produc-
tion.

The social consequences of the S'TR under capitalism, how-
ever, often turn against the working people, because while open-
ing up new possibilities for optimising production, successes in
science often lead to greater unemployment, higher prices, and
more intensive exploitation of labour. And that is only natural

17]

in a society where science and technology serve the interests of
those who own the means of production, the interests of the
capitalist class, which gears the course of scientific and technical
progress to commercial considerations based on a striving to de-
rive maximum profits. That is why science itself is increasingly
commerctalised. Its development is totally subordinated to the
self-seeking interests of the monopolies, which markedly reduces
its social potential.

The relations between science and the society are quite dif-
ferent under socialism, where it is a powerful instrument for ac-
celerating production and improving the wellbeing of all the
working people. A conjunction of the basic achievements of the
STR with the advantages of the socialist economic system in our
day opens up boundless perspectives for a qualitative improve-
ment of the working people’s life.

Under socialism, science serves the people. The huge army
of scientists and research personnel come from the people, and
they use their professional knowledge for the people’s benefit.
‘There are no longer any social barriers hetween scientific creative
endeavour and other types of work and production activity, as
there are under capitalism. Tn the USSR, it is not only scien-
tists who make their contribution to the country’s scientific po-
tential, but also millions of innovators, inventors and researchers
in production enthusiasts who combine work at plants and fac-
tories, on collective farms, in the most diverse sectors of the
economy with an active scientific quest.

Socialism creates all the conditions for raising the efficiency
of science. Scientific research is coordinated both on the scale
of separate economic regions and on the scale of whole countries
and the socialist community as a whole.

The dialectico-materialist world outlook, which is the theoretico-
cognitive guide and methodology of science under socialism,
| equips researchers with a correct understanding of the phenom-
ena and processes they study. It is owing to the successes of
|

science that this world outlook has been accepted by all mem-
bers of the socialist society.

In the USSR, as in other socialist countries, constant attention
is being paid to the development of science, for modern science
is turning into a powerful productive force. Skillful use of its

results under socialism helps to restructure the whole national

172

economic mechanism and to switch it to intensive development,
which creates the necessary prerequisites and conditions for a rapid
improvement of the material wellbeing of all social groups and
strata, for the society's advance along the road of improving so-
cialism, towards communism.

x * %&

In examining and bringing out the laws of the functioning of
ideas in the society and its spiritual culture as a whole, Marxist
social theory gives a scientific explanation of the specific mechan-
ism and diversity of each form of social consciousness. That
helps to understand many processes of present-day ideological
and cultural life.

Each form of social consciousness Marxism examines: (a) in
connection with its other forms and (b) on the assumption of
the structural unity of its basic levels and components.

Marxist social theory shows the dialectics of the society and
the process of its reflection by each form of collective conscious-
ness, making it possible to see the influence of that process on
human life in the society and its development.

Conclusion

This study aid was meant to acquaint the reader with the prin-
ciples of Marxist social theory and the range of its problems.

As an introduction to historical materialism, this book natu-
rally does not lay claim to an exhaustive analysis of all its prob-
lems. That is hardly possible, and not only in view of the spe-
cifics of the philosophical and sociological problems considered
by historical materialism, but also because this book, like any
other “introduction”, is only a preliminary step to the subsequent
study of the multifaceted historical process and the human so-
ciety.

The scientific materialist conception of social theory was de-
veloped in the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin precisely as
a philosophico-sociological theory of history and the society. This
theory serves as a guide in the scientific analysis of the problems
of man and of the laws and conditions of transforming the world
in which he lives.

The development of historical materialism was closely tied in
with the elaboration by its founders of the principles of dialectico-
materialist philosophy, which opened a new stage in the devel-
opment of human cognition as a whole, including social cogni-
tion. ‘That process was successful primarily because its theorists
were able to draw close to an adequate vision of the major prob-
lems of the society and social cognition. [t was only the prin-
ciples of scientific dialectical philosophy that made it possible to
re-orient social knowledge along radically new lines.

Marx, Engels and Lenin did not confine themselves to a quest
for ways of solving the theoretical problems of social science,
but linked up these problems with the urgent practical aspects
of social reconstruction. That is why one could say that right

174

from the very beginning Marxist philosophico-sociological theory
developed in answer to mankind's vital questions, as formulated
by progressive scientific thought.

Socio-historical development in the 20th century has fully
confirmed the truth, scientifte validity and consistency of the stand
taken by historical materialism on cardinal issues of history, the
society and social cognition itself,

The present-day picture of the changes that reflect the course
of mankind's advance along the road of social progress is highly
complicated and contradictory. ‘The contest between the forces
of progress and reaction in our day is extremely intense and ir-
reconcilable.

These clashing tendencies exert a considerable influence on
economics and politics, ideology and culture, morality, science, art,
and every other sphere of human life in the present-day world.
One can hardly be indifferent to such burning problems as those
of peace, disarmament and realisation of elementary human
rights, implying the need to guarantee human life and ensure a
dignified future for mankind, a future without war or poverty,
exploitation or humiliation, hunger or violence.

Historical materialism gives a scientific explanation of existing
problems. helps to understand their underlying causes, and points
out ways to resolve them.

Just as historical and social reality itself, scientific materialist
theory is steadily developing: some of its propositions are being
specified, and the principles of social cognition outlined and elab-
orated by Marx, Engels and Lenin are being reaffirmed and
deepened.

‘To master these principles and the related categories, it is
not enough to go through a manual in historical materialism,
however full and detailed. One should keep turning to the prime
sources of that doctrine the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin.
The struggle carried on by the founders of the new and scientific
materialist theory against any misconceptions of social life and
the sources of its change is still relevant today.

This book marks the first step in the acquaintance with the
genesis and problems of historical materialism. But there is no
end to the development of human cognition, and one should like
to hope that the reader will continue along that way, deepening
aud perfecting his or her knowledge.

175

Glossary: Key Concepts of Marxist Philosophy
and Social Theory*

A

Activity, a specifically human active attitude to the surrounding
world, whose content is the transformation of the latter. 4

Agnosticism, a philosophical conception that denies the possibility of
knowing the laws and essence of the objective world.

Alienation, a conversion of the results of human activity (products
of labour, social and other relations), of man’s properties and abilities
into something independent of him, alien to him and dominating over
him. A. is a historically transient phenomenon in social development,
conditioned by the character of the division of labour in a society dom-
inated by private property.

Anarchism, a petty-bourgeois socio-political trend that denies all po-
litical (and other) authority and indicates individualism, boundless free-
dom of the individual.

Antagonistic Society, a society divided into classes with opposite, or
antagonistic, interests.

Anthropologism, a philosophical trend which sees the concept of
“man”? (rather than “inatter” or “consciousness”) as the main category
of the world outlook, on the strength of which one can claborate one’s
view of nature, the society and thought. A. is confined to an abstract
understanding of man and implies idealism in views on the society.

Aristocracy, (1) the top stratum of the exploiter classes, a privileged
hereditary nobility in the slaveholding, feudal and capitalist society;
2) a type of government characterised by the rule of an aristocratic elite.

Arlt, a specific type of man’s spiritual and practical mastery of the
world, creative activity in the course of which man creates artistic images
that reflect reality and embody his aesthetic attitude to it. As a form
of social consciousness, A. not only reflects, but exerts an active influence
on practical human life, aud has a moral, educational and political sig-
nificance.

B

Basis, the totality of historically conditioned relations of production,
which constitute the society's economic structure and above which rises
its superstructure.

Bell, Daniel (b. 1919), American bourgeois sociolouist, the leading
theorist of the post-industrial society.

* The terms are referred to in the text by the initial letter or letters.

176

Blagoyev, Dimitr (1856-1924), propagandist of Marxism in Bulgaria
and Russia. author of works in Marxist philosophy.

Blanguism, a trend in the French revolutionary movement of the 19th
century connected with the name of Louis Auguste Blanqui (1805-1881),
who believed that it was possible to put an end to capitalism through a
seizure of power by a handful of revolutionaries. Denying the importance
of the proletariat’s class struggle, Blanqui absolutised conspiratorial tac-
lics in the event of an uprising ‘and so depreciated the role of the party
and the masses).

Bourgeois Democracy, a form of power in a bourgeois state under
which the cquality of all citizens (political aud other rights and free-
doms) is proclaimed only nominally, whereas the actual purpose is to
ensure the interests and privileges of the ruling classes, to maintain their
high social status enshrined by that power.

Bourgeoisie, a class which owns the means of production and ex-
ploits wage-labour; the ruling class of the capitalist society, which in-
cludes big, medium and small capitalists. ‘lhe predominant positions
within the bourgeois class are occupied by the representatives of big
(including monopoly) capital, who seek to perpetuate their domination.

Cc

Capitalism, a socio-economic system based on private property in
the ineans of production and exploitation of wage-labour by capital.

Categories (in philosophy), the most general concepts that reflect
both the main properties aud uuiformities of objective reality itself
and the connection between it and cognition (in this instance, C. de-
termine the character of theoretical thought). Among the most fuu-
damental philosophical C. are being, consciousness, matter, motion, ete.

Civic Society. a term of pre-Marnist philosophy used to denote the
bourgeois society (or, more precisely, the property relations of that
society).

Class Antagonism, a confrontation of mutually antithetical class in-
lerests stemming froin the peculiarities of the social and economic sta-
tus of each of these classes.

Class “for Itself’, a concept characterising the objective and sub-
jective revelation of the essence of a class in the historical process (see
Class “in Itself”.) A class “for itself” is a stage in the development of a
class when. having understood its own interests, it puts them forward in
definite political programmes, contrasts them with the interests of oth-
er classes, and carries on an active struggle for their realisation. ‘Lhe
development of a class “in itself” into a class “for itself’ depends on
the formation and maturing of its class consciousness.

Class “in Itself’, a stage in the development of a class which is not
as yet aware of its basic vital interests, of their distinction from (or
coincidence with) the interests of other classes. and which has not as
yet come up with any political or social programmes of its own (see
Class “for Itself’?).

Class Struggle, an economic, political and ideological struggle be-

12+1807 177

tween classes whose vital interests, their material interests above all. are
incompatible. C. S. leads to a resolution of class contradictions, and
is the motive force behind the development of antagonistic societies and
a prerequisite for a transition from one socio-economic formation to
another (through revolution. the culminating point of the class struggle

Classes, Basic, classes connected with the predominant mode ol pro-
duction. In an antagonistic-class society, these include the class which
owns the means of production and the opposite oppressed class (slaves
and slave-owners in a slaveholding society: peasants and landowners
under feudalism; the proletariat and the bourgeoisie under capitalism

Classes, Non-Basic, classes in an antagonistic society which have no
direct connection with the predominant mode of production (like hand-
icraftsmen under slavery or peasants under capitalism): to these classes
are adjacent various social strata (the clergy, the intelligentsia),
which, like these classes themselves, often back the interests and posi-
tions of one of the basic classes, so influencing the course of the class
struggle.

Classical German Philosophy, the philosophical systems of Kant,
Fichte. Schelling, Hegel and Feuerbach. which represented a major his-
torical period in the development of philosophy, a period marked by
the emergence of the dialectical method, eventually reworked on a ma-
terialist basis by Marx and Eneels.

Clericalism, a socio-political trend seeking to strengthen the role of
the Church in the spiritual and political life of the society. C. is used
by the imperialist circles in the struggle against progressive tnass move-
ments.

Cognition, a socio-historical process of human activity aimed at re-
flecting the objective world in human consciousness; the results of C.
exist in the form of knowledge.

Collective Farmers, a class employed in ayricultural production based
on group (collective-farm-cooperative) property.

Collectivism, a moral principle which expresses relations of mutual
assistance, solidarity and cooperation between people. As a principle,
C. is antithetical 10 individualisin.

Colonialism, political, economic and spiritual enslavement of countries
which are usually less developed in socio-economic terms.

Common Sense, people's views on the surrounding reality and on them-
selves which take shape spontancously, under the impact of their daily
experience. C. S. provides a basis for human practical activity and
morality.

Comte, Auguste (1798-1857), Krench bourgeois philosopher and. so-
ciologist, founder of positivism.

Concept (scientific), man’s generalised idea about the features and
properties of objects or phenomena expressed in terms of language (in
the form of words or combinations of words). By bringing out the gen-
eral and essential in objects and phenomena (like “revolution” or “dicta-
torship of the proletariat”), C. is an instrument of theoretical cognition.

Consciousness, human capacity for an ideal reproduction of reality
in thought. C. is conscious being, a property of highly organised tmat-

178

ter, a subjective image of the objective world, As a form of mental re-
flection, C. is a result of social practice.

Cosmopolitanism, a reactionary bourgeois ideology advocating indif-
ference to one’s homeland. people and national culture. Bourgeois C.
is anuthetical and hostile to proletarian internationalism.

Counterculture, an ideology of protest against the bourgeois establish-
ment on the part of social groups and strata in the West opposed
to the predominant culture. ©. is a form of spontaneous petty-bourgeois
protest against “mass culture’ and technocratic ideology.

Cultural Norms, historically changing (though relatively stable) mod-
els and standards rooted in customs and traditions, which provide a
basis for regulating the activity of the society as a whole, its cultural
institutions and systeims.

Culture, all types of transformative activity by man and the society,
and also its results. CG. is a historical level in the development of man
and the society expressed in definite forms and types of the organisa-
tion of human life and activity, in the material and spiritual values
created by people.

Culture of Human Relations, a system of values, rules, modes and
models of human thought and action, which manifests itself in the char-
acter of the relations between individuals and the types of behaviour ac-
cepted in a given society.

Custom, a habitual mode of behaviour common to most members of
the society ‘social group).

D

Democracy, people's power, a political system which proclaims and
enacts in law the citizens’ freedoms and equality. Bourgeois democra-
cy is marked by a discrepancy between the nominally proclaimed pow-
er of the people and the actual rule of a minority, the bourgeoisie. So-
cialism establishes people's power in practice, with true democracy tor
all the working people; Jaws under socialism not only establish. but
also guarantee the freedoms and equality of all citizens.

Detente, a policy of relations between states with different social sys-
tems aimed at strengthening peaceful coexistence between them, mu-
tual confidence. mutual understanding and cooperation in the econom-
ic. humanitarian and other fields on the basis of a negotiated settle-
ment of complicated international problems without any use of force,
military or political pressure.

Dialectical Materialism, a science of the most general laws govern-
ing the development of nature, the society and thought. the philosophi-
cal world outlook of Marxism-Leninism. the general methodology of the
cognition and transformation of the world.

Dialectics, a philosophical doctrine of the most general laws gov-
erning the development of nature, the society and thought, the univer-
sal method of the cognition of reality.

Dictatorship, (1) the political rule of a definite class; (2) the pow-
er of a dictator.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat, state power of the working class es-

a 179

tablished through a socialist revolution and used to assert the victory of
that revolution, ensure broad democracy for the working people. sup-
press the resistance of the overthrown exploiter classes, and build a
socialist society in the conditions of a period of transition from capi-
talism to socialism. Coercion of the exploiters is not the sole or even
the main purpose of D. P.. which is mostly meant to tackle construc-
tive tasks: to build a socialist social system and put into effect the full-
est democracy for all the working people. The diversity of the histor-
ical forms of D. P. is due to differences in the conditions of building
socialism.

Division of Labour, a socially conditioned system of interconnected.
but different types and forms of labour activity. specific to each partic-
ular epoch.

Doctrine, a system of views expressing definite ideological or polit-
ical tenets (like the Monroe D.. which justifies US hegemony in the
Western Hemisphere. or the 1D. of globalism, which serves to establish
US imperialist diktat in different regions of the world).

E

Economic System of the Society, the system of economic life in a
country reflecting the nature and forms of property, the goals of social
production. and the principles of the distribution of the social product
and economic administration. Any economic system is based on a histor-
ically conditioned type of property in the means of production.

Economism, an opportunist trend in the Russian Social-Democratic
movement in the early 20th century, which sought to confine the work-
ing-class movement solely to a struzale for economic interests.

Elite. a concept of non-Marsxist sociology denoting “select”, privi-
leged sroups of people who play the “leading”. active role in social life.
The concept implies an apologetics of the actual relations of socio-
economic, class inequality.

Empirio-Criticism, a subjective-idealist trend in philosophy (late
19th and early 20th centuries) connected with the doctrine of Ernst
Mach and other philosophers of a “‘critical experience’ of the world
as a “complex of sensations’ E. C. denied the actual existence of the
material world and regarded things as phenomena of the consciousness,
as complexes of human sensations. In his Afaterialism and Empirio-
Criticism (1908), Lenin refuted E. C.’s idealistic interpretation of ques-
tions relating to cognition.

Engels, Frederick (1820-1895). a brilliant theorist and great prole-
tarian revolutionary. one of the founders of Marxism as the new revo-
lutionary outlook of the working people, Marx’s friend and associate.

Estate, a social group with rights and duties enshrined in law and
custom (usually inheritable). E. is a form of class distinctions in the
precapitalist society. whose social structure retained a hierarchy of prop-
erty distinctions.

Everyday (Conventional) Consciousness, people's spontancous aware-
ness of their interests. by which they are guided in their daily practice

180

in the habitual spheres of life: social and personal (in production, in
daily and family life. in personal relations with other people).

Exploitation, uncompensated appropriation of the products turned
out by the suplus-labour and sometimes even by a part of the neces-
sary labour of the immediate producers by the class that owns the means
of production. E. is intrinsic to all socio-economic formations resting on
private property in the means of production (slaveholding, feudal and
capitalist).

F

Faith, a world outlook in which events. theories and statements (in-
cluding religious ideas of being. deities) are accepted as true and valid
without any proof. F. is the opposite of knowledge.

Fascism, a political trend which emerged in the conditions of the
general crisis of capitalism and which expresses the interests of the most
reactionary forces. F. in power is an openly terrorist dictatorship. Fa-
scist ideolowy is based on chauvinism, anti-communism and racism.

Fatalism, a belief that events and the course of world development are
fixed in advance and that human beings are powerless to change them.

Fetishism, the process of attributing supernatural properties to prod-
ucts of labour, which derives from a reification of social relations
‘when these are seen as material things) and a personification of things.
That process. which is characteristic of the commodity-capitalist mode
of production, means that the social and cultural functions of a thing
are secn as its natural properties.

Feudalism, an antagonistic-class socio-economic formation which
marks a definite historical stage in the socicty’s development from slavery
to capitalism. F. is largely based on the natural (subsistence) economy,
oriented towards the simple reproduction of the material values necessa-
ry for life, a self-satisfaction of basic requirements, and the individual's
close ties with the group. Land is in the property of the feudal lords
(the ruling class under l’.), who have unlimited power over the econom-
ically dependent peasants. The latter's labour is the source of the en-
richment of the feudal lords.

Feuerbach, Ludwig (1804-1872), German materialist philosopher and
atheist, whose views were one of the theoretical sources of the philosoph-
ical doctrine of Marx and Engels.

Fideism, a doctrine which puts faith above scientifically validated
knowledee, closing ranks with idealism and religion.

Freedom, man’s ability to act in accordance with his own goals and
interests. on the strength of his experience in the cognition of objective
necessity.

French Materialism, an ideological and philosophical movement con-
nected with the development of materialist thought and world outlook
among the progressive section of the French bourgeoisie. F. M. served
to enlighten broad strata of the society in the 18th century. The philo-
sophical views of Denis Diderot. Claude Adrien Helvetius, Julien Offroy
de la Mettrie. Paul Tfenri Dietrich Holbach and other representatives

181

of F. M. were elaborated in the context of the natural sciences. ethics

and atheism.

Freudo-Marxism, a trend in philosophy and sociology whose repre-
sentatives lay claim to a synthesis of Freudian anthropological concep-
tions with the principles of the Marxist dialectics of social analysis.

Fundamental Question of Philosophy, the question about the rela-
tion of thought to being. of the ideal to the material, to nature. F. Q. P.
calls for an answer to:(1) what is primary--matter or consciousness,
and (2) whether consciousness can correctly reflect and cognise the
world.

G

Gens, a group of blood relatives who trace their descent cither through
the maternal or the paternal line, regard themselves as having a com-
mon ancestor, and bear a cominon (gentile) name. As a form of histo-
rical community, G. precedes the tribal social organisation.

Geopolitics, a reactionary trend in bourgeois political thought based
on an exaggeration of the role of geographical factors in social life. G.
serves to spread the ideas of racial inequality. insufficiency of Lebens-
rau (living space), etc.. which are used to justify the aggressive foreign
policy of imperialist states.

I

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (1770-1831), leading representative
of classical German philosophy, objective idealist who developed the
system of idealist dialectics.

Historicism, the principle of studying social phenomena in the light
of their origin and development in a given society, in the context of def-
inite periods of the socio-historical process.

History, (1) the development of nature and the society; (2) a science
studying mankind's past, and also the experience accumulated by
people in different fields of knowledge.

I

Idea, the supreme form of the cognition of reality, reflecting the
object being studied and aimed at its transformation.

Idealism, a philosophical trend which regards spirit, thought and
consciousness as primary, and being, nature and matter as secondary in
answering the basic question of philosophy (the question about the rela-
tion of being to consciousness).

Ideological Relations, all the relations existing in such spheres of
social life as politics. religion. morality. law, philosophy and art. I. R.
are realised through a system of views connected with each of these
spheres, and also through government measures. party activity, legal and
ovher norms. and so on.

Ideology, a system of views and ideas through which people com-
prehend and assess human relations, the relations of social classes to real-
ity and to cach other, social problems and conflicts, and which contain

182

programmes and goals of political activity aimed at preserving or re-
structuring the existing social relations, at their transformation and de-
velopment.

Image, Artistic, a mode of the reflection and mastery of reality in
art (literature. music, architecture, ete.).

Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism, characterised by the
emergence of monopoly associations exercising control both on the scale
of the national and the international market. 1. is closely connected with
colonialism and the arms race; it creates the economic prerequisites for
the society’s revolutionary transition to socialism.

Individual, a single human being as a representative of the human
race (see Personality).

Individualism, a moral and world-outlook orientation contrasting the
individual’s interests and requirements with those of the society, and
serving to justify anarchisin and nihilism.

Intelligentsia, a social group of people professionally engaged in men-
tal work which requires special training. ‘Fhe I. has no independent
status within the system of social production and cannot be called a

class.
K

Kant, Immanuel (1724-1804), founder of classical German idealisin.

Knowledge, a result of the cognitive process conditioned by histor-
ical and social practice, a reflection of reality in the human conscious-
ness in the form of definite notions, judvements. concepts and theories.

L

Labour, “the everlasting Nature-imposed condition of human existence”
(Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. l, p. 179), purposeful human activity
aimed at mastering nature and using its resources to meet vital human
requirements.

Labriola, Antonio (1843-1904). Italian philosopher and writer, who
propounded the materialist understanding of history claborated by Marx
and Engels.

Lafargue, Paul (1842-1911), French disciple of Marx, who did much
to claborate the problems of the materialist view of history, political
economy, literary criticism and linguistics.

Law, (1) the whole body of norms and rules of human behaviour
prescribed or sanctioned by the state, the legalised will of the ruling
class. L. embraces diverse spheres of social life. As a form of the organ-
isation of social relations, L. is in a state of constant development. (2)
An objective, necessary, recurrent and stable connection between phe-
nomena in the nature and the society, which determines the sequence,
the order of their change (see Social Uniformity).

Legal Consciousness, all the ideas and views which express the at-
titude of individuals, social groups and classes to law, legality and the
existing system of justice, their notions about what is lawful and unlaw-
ful.

Legal Ideology, a system of the legal ideas and views of a given

183

class as recorded in legal theories and legislative documents, which re-
flect definite legal norms and relations.

“Legal Marxism”, an ideologico-political trend among the Russian
bourgeois intelligentsia (late 19th and early 20th centuries). Laying
claim to a “Marxist” critique of Narodism, the “legal Marxists’ repu-
diated the proletariat’s class struggle and socialist revolution.

Legal Relations, all social relations regulated by law.

Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich (1870-1924), founder of the Soviet state in
Russia, organiser and leader of the CPSU and ihe international work-
ing-class and communist movement, brilliant Marxist thinker and theo-
rist. He upheld and developed the Marxist doctrine in the new histori-
cal conditions, brought out the uniforimities of the imperialist stage in
the development of capitalism, and claborated the theory of socialist rev-
olution.

M

Machism, a subjective-idealist trend in philosophy (late 19th and
early 20th centuries) deriving from the empirio-criticism of Ernst Mach.

Man, a human being characterised by language, thought and con:
sciousness; the subject of conscious activity, in the course of which M.
is both a prerequisite and a product of history. According to Marx, “the
essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In
its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations’ (see Karl Marx and
Frederick Engels, “The Theses on Feuerbach, Collecicd WWorks, Vol. 5,
p. 6.)

Mfanipulation (Brainwashing), a system of methods for exerting a
spiritual-psychological and ideological influence on human consciousness
through the mass media in order to subordinate the working masses to
the moral values and way of life that are acceptable to the ruling classes
of an antagonistic society. which scek to strengthen its foundation
by implanting conformism, the consumer mentality and anticommiunism.

Marcuse, Herbert (1898-1979), American sociologist, ideologue of the
left-radical movement, theorist of Freudo-Marxisin.

Marx, Karl, (1818-1883), brilliant theorist and great proletarian rey-
olutionary, founder of dialectical and historical materialism, scientific
| political economy and the theory of scientific communisin, organiser and

leader of the earliest international organisations of the working class.
Marxism (after Karl Marx, the founder of the theory), philosophical,
sociological and politico-economic theory, the truly scientific world out-
look and international ideology of the proletariat. the most revolutionary
| class. M. includes three interrelated components: dialectical and histor-
ical materialism, political economy and_ scientific communism. It is a
| doctrine about the main development laws of nature and the society,
the laws of the proletariat’s revolutionary struggle to overthrow capital-
ism, about the victory of socialism and the building of a communist so-
ciety. In the 20th century, Marxism was developed by Lenin (see Afarx-

| ism-Leninism).
Marxism-Leninism, a scientific system of philosophical, economic, so-
cial and political views elaborated by Marx, Engels and Lenin. M. L.

184

is the world outlook of progressive social classes, a theory of the cogni-
tion of the world, the development laws of nature, the society and hu-
man thought. It provides a theoretical basis for the reconstruction of the
present-day world.

Mass Consciousness, collective consciousness in the form of everyday
consciousness and various ideological notions which manifest themselves
through the psychology of different social groups, classes and strata of
a society (serving as a prerequisite and an inducement to their activity).

Mass Culture, a concept denoting the state of bourgeois culture under
capitalism in the 20th century. M. C. is marked by wide use of the
mass media, an industrial-commercial type of production and distribu-
tion of standardised spiritual values (books, music, etc.). Under state-
monopoly capitalism, the spread of M. C. involves ever greater manipu-
lation of the consciousness of the masses.

Materialism, a philosophical trend which maintains that the world
is a material, objectively existing reality, cognisable and reflected in
the consciousness.

Materialist Understanding of History, see Historical Materialism.

Matriarchy, a form of social organisation in the primitive-communal
system in which descent was traced through the female line and where
the woman played the leading role in economic and social life.

Matter, a philosophical category denoting objective reality given to
man in his sensations, reflected by these sensations and existing outside
and independently of these.

Means of Production, all the means of labour and objects of labour
used by people in the production of material values.

Method, a mode of human theoretical and practical activity aimed
at the cognition of natural and social phenomena. In philosophy, M.
is the way in which a system of philosophical knowledge is constructed
and substantiated. Materialist dialectics is the universal M. of the cog-
nition of reality.

Methodology, a doctrine of the principles, forms and methods of
scientific cognition.

Mode of Production, a historically distinct stage of production con-
nected with a definite mode of people’s joint labour activity, with de-
finite historical forms and relations of their social life.

Monarchy, a form of government in exploiter states under which
supreme state power is vested in a single ruler, a hereditary monarch.

Motives, ideals, requirements and tenets prompting the subject to ac-
tion (individuals, whole groups and classes).

Myth (ideological), false and distorted views and notions about var-
ious aspects of real life invented by ideologues of present-day capital-
ism.

N
Narodism (in Russia), an ideological trend of petty-bourgeois peas-
ant democracy (late 19th and early 20th centuries) which propounded

liberal programmes of “national socialism”, including those aimed to

13—1807 185

offset the influence of Marxism. N. was deeply criticised and invali-
dated by Lenin.

Nation, a historical form of human community marked by a steady
community of economic life, language, territory and national character,
which manifests itself in the specifics of its culture and everyday life.
As a socio-historical phenomenon, N. emerges in the period of transition
from feudal seclusion and fragmentation to capitalism, which strength-
ens economic and political ties within the country.

National Question, the question about the ways and means of elimi-
nating any of the capitalist forms of inequality between peoples, putting
an end to national oppression, and asserting equitable relations between
peoples and nations.

Nationalism, the ideology, policy and psychology of the bourgeoisie
in the national question. N. is expressed in the notions about the na-
tional exclusiveness of some peoples and their superiority over others,
national seclusion, hostility and enmity between peoples and _ nations.

Nationality, a historical form of community marked by common ter-
ritory, language, culture and mentality, entrenched in the customs and
traditions that regulate relations between its members. This form of com-
munity is determined by the economic structure of the slaveholding and
feudal societies.

Naturalism, the principle of explaining the social world and its de-
velopment of the strength of natural uniformities. N. exaggerates the
importance of the “natural” prerequisites of social life and underestimates
the role of the human consciousness.

Nature, (1) in the broad sense of the word, the whole world in the
diversity of its forms; that which in philosophy is called “matter”; (2)
all the natural conditions of the existence of the human society; the
material conditions of human life.

Neocolonialism, a system of dependent economic and political rela-
tions being imposed by the imperialist states on sovereign countries. N.
is a modernised form of colonialism, and combines direct and indirect
methods of economic, political, ideological and military expansion in
Asian, African and Latin American countries (see Colonialism, Colonial
System).

Neo-Freudianism, a trend in non-Marxist philosophy and _ sociology
propounding psychoanalytical (known as Freudian after Sigmund Freud,
the founder of psychoanalysis) notions. N. accentuates the irrational pre-
requisites for human activity, explaining social processes on the strength
of the conceptions of unconscious inclinations which motivate the ac-
tivities of individuals and social groups in the course of their interaction.

Neo-Kantianism, a non-Marxist philosophical trend of the late 19th
and the first third of the 20th century advocating a “return” to Kant,
whose doctrine is interpreted from an extremely one-sided idealistic
angle.

“Neo-Marxism”, a trend in Western social thought (1920s-1980s)
seeking to revise Marxism on the basis of an eclectic combination of
petty-bourgeois conceptions of revolution, neo-Hegelianism, neo-Freudian-
ism, anarcho-radicalism, “left” existentialism, structuralism, etc. N. in-

186

ierprets the crisis phenomena of capitalism from a vulgar sociological
stand, either rejecting or sharply criticising from the “left” the funda-
mental propositions and conclusions of the Marxist-Leninist theory of
revolution and the achievements of existing socialism.

O

Objectivism, (1) a world outlook which denies a concrete historical
analysis of social life and lays claim to a “neutral”, classless approach to
the study of the society; (2) the view that historical development is
“impersonal” and “spontaneous’, and is beyond the control of human
will and consciousness, a view that is characteristic of vulgar economism
and similar trends.

Opportunism, a conciliatory trend within the working-class movement
which is hostile to the class interests of the working people and which
advocates collaboration with the bourgeoisie and a renunciation of the
struggle for a socialist revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat and
communism.

P

Paris Commune, the first government set up by the people (histor-
ically, the first form of the dictatorship of the proletariat) in the course
of the French revolution of 1871. The experience of the Paris Com-
mune was elaborated in the Marxist doctrine of proletarian dictatorship
(see Dictatorship of the Proletariat).

Partisanship (in philosophy and sociology), an ideological and world-
outlook orientation expressing the interests of various social groups and
classes and manifesting itself through certain leanings and tendencies in
the assessment of social phenomena.

Patriarchy, a form of social organisation in the era of the disintegra-
tion of the primitive-communal system that came to replace matriarchy.
Descent under P, was traced through the male line, and men played the
leading role in family, economic and social life.

People, a concrete historical concept, the part of the population (a
totality of definite classes and social groups) that is the main motive
force of historical transformations, promoting them and playing the
decisive role in them. P. is primarily the working masses, who create
material values and promote the society’s development. Alongside with
these, the concept of P. can include other groups and strata which come
out together with the working people for progressive social transforma-
tions.

People’s Democracy, a form of political organisation in the society
that emerged as revolutionary democratic power after the victory of
people’s democratic revolutions (in a number of Asian and European
countries). With the development of people’s democratic revolutions
into socialist revolutions, P.D. turned into a form of the dictatorship
of the proletariat on a multiparty basis, uniting all progressive mass
parties and organisations, often in a national front (see Dictatorship of
the Proletariat).

13* 187

Period of Transition from Capitalism to Socialism, a special histori-
cal period of the revolutionary transformation of the capital-
ist society into a socialist one. It starts with the establishment of state
power by the working class and ends with the building of a socialist so-
ciety.

Personalism, a trend in religious-idealist philosophy which sees the
personality as the primary reality of the world, and the world itself as
the creation of god, the “supreme personality”.

Personality, man as the subject of definite social relations and activ-
ity (i.e., as a member of a definite community of people).

Petty Bourgeoisie, a class of small property owners in town and
country living exclusively (or largely) by their labour. P.B. occupies an
intermediate position between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the
basic classes of the capitalist society.

Phenomenological Sociology, a theoretical trend in non-Marxist so-
ciology which regards the society as a phenomenon that is being con-
stantly recreated by an interaction of the consciousnesses of individuals,
that is, solely as a process of their spiritual being. P.S. denies the ob-
jective existence of social structures, identifying the structures of inter-
action between individuals with the latter’s notions about these.

Phenomenology, an idealist philosophical trend which, seeking to
overcome naturalism in the explanation of the real world and cognition,
absolutised the activity of the human consciousness and ended up with
subjectivism.

Philosophy, a system of the most general ideas about the world and
man’s place in it, the theoretical basis of the world outlook. As a spe-
cial form of social consciousness, P. exists and develops in close con-
nection with changes in the conditions of human life, as a reflection of
social being.

Philosophy of Culture, a non-Marxist philosophical trend (first half
of the 20th century) connected with an analysis of the essence and sig-
nificance of culture as a historical] and social phenomenon.

Philosophy of History, a field of philosophical research which studies
the meaning and laws of history.

Philosophy of Identity, a philosophical conception maintaining the
identity of being and consciousness, which served as a basis for Hegel’s
system of objective idealism.

Philosophy of Life, a subjective-idealist trend of non-Marxist philos-
ophy in the first third of the 20th century oriented towards an irration-
alistic interpretation of various problems of man and the surrounding
world from the standpoint of “life” (in contrast to reason) as an infi-
nite, intuitive and “creative” principle.

Plekhanov, Georgi Valentinovich (1856-1918), Russian Marxist phi-
losopher and prominent figure in the Russian and international working-
class movement; after 1903, he adopted a Menshevist stand.

Political Consciousness, the political awareness of social subjects (in-
dividuals, groups, classes, etc.), a form of social consciousness. P.C. is
a totality of political and social knowledge and assessments.

Political Economy, a science of the laws governing the society’s eco-

188

nomic life (production, exchange, distribution and consumption of mate-
rial values) at different stages of its historical development. Classical
bourgeois P.E. discovered a number of “natural”? Jaws of capitalism, but
was unable to show their transient character and did not see any class
struggle in the society. Marxist P.E. gave a historico-materialist explana-
tion of these laws. putting the discipline on a scientific basis.

Political Ideology, a system of theoretically substantiated (in the form
of theories, doctrines. etc.) notions of a class expressing its views on the
political organisation of the society. the forms of state, the relations be-
tween groups and classes within the state, their place in the society, and
the state’s relations with other states.

Political Party, the supreme form of the organisation of a class (its
most active section or stratum), expressing its interests and guiding it
in the attainment of definite goals and ideals.

Political Regime, a system of the methods used in exercising state
power.

Political System (of the society), a system of state and non-state so-
cial institutions performing definite political functions. Its main elements
are the state, parties, trade unions, and other public organisations.

Politics, a sphere of activity connected with relations between classes,
nations and other social entities, pivoted on the question of state power,
on how to win, retain and use that power.

Populism, pseudo-popular ideological and political trends (both right-
wing and pscudo-revolutionary left-wing) advocating the slogans of demo-
cratism and non-Marxist socialism. Addressed to “the people” and
their “vital interests”. these trends are being vigorously used for dema-
gogic purposes by bourgeois ideologues and politicians.

Positivism, a philosophical trend which maintains that true (“posi-
tive’) knowledge can only be gained through a synthesis of the data
obtained from various experimental sciences. without any special world-
outlook guide.

Post-industrialism, the conception of a post-industrial society in which
non-Marxist sociologists (Daniel Bell, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Alvin Toffler
and others) contrast capitalism and socialism with a new type of social
system which allegedly puts an end to the relations of property in the
means of production and to class distinctions, and where technology and
the STR become the key factor of development. An important role in
that society is assigned to the sphere of the services, science and educa-
tion. P. is a modernised ideal of the capitalist society.

Power, an ability to exercise one’s will and influence human activity
and behaviour with the help of certain means (authority. legal and
other norms. coercion, etc.). There are different types (economic, po-
litical. social) and forms of P. depending on the sphere of its influence
and the conditions of its emergence. In antagonistic-class societies,
P. rests on domination by the class that owns the means of production
and the subordination to it of other classes. Under socialism. P. is char-
acterised by genuine democracy of the whole people.

Practice, man’s multifaceted and purposeful activity aimed at mas-

189

tering and transforming natural and social objects. P. is the motive force
in the development of the society and cognition.

Primitive-Communal System, the first socio-economic stage in man:
kind’s development, which existed from the emergence of man as a human
being to the appearance of a class society. The main element of the
primitive-communal system was the gentile (maternal. and then paternal
and village) commune. That system was characterised by common prop-
erty in the means of production, a low level of the productive forces.
of the division of labour and consumption. The development of the
productive forces and social division of labour gave rise to private prop-
erty, which Ied to the disintegration of the primitive-communal system
and to a class society.

Production, a process of joint human labour whose purpose is to
transform nature, maintain and reproduce human life, and create the
material values necessary for the society’s existence.

Proletarian Internationalism, the principle of international solidarity.
mutual assistance and joint action by the working people in thcir strug-
gle for common goals connected with a radical transformation of the
world and mankind’s advance along the road of social progress.

Property, the mode of appropriation by people of the means of pro-
duction, the results of production activity and other material values. P.
means definite relations of production between people, as expressed
through their relations to things. There are two main types of P.: pri-
vate P. (under which the means of production are in the hands of a
minute section of the society) and social P. (their collective and equit-
able appropriation by all members of the society).

Proudhon, Pierre Joseph (1809-1865), French petty-bourgeois eco-
nomist and sociologist, one of the founders of anarchism.

Providentialism, a theistic interpretation of history as predetermined
by god (providence), which goes back to medieval religious scholastics
in the tradition of St. Augustine.

R

Racism, all unscientific conceptions alleging the mental and physical
inferiority of some races (nationalities, peoples) as compared with others.
that is, claiming a “natural” division of human beings into higher and
lower races and its decisive influence on the development of culture
and history.

Rationalism, a philosophical trend that regards reason as the basis
of human cognition and behaviour. R. was substantiated by classical
German philosophy.

Reform (social), a change in some aspect of social life (institution,
establishment, ctc.), an innovation that does not destroy the basis of the
existing social order.

Reformism, a political trend in the working-class movement which
is opposed to class struggle and to socialist revolution and wants to
change the capitalist society through reforms on the basis of class collabo-
ration within the framework of the existing system. Any reformist theories

190

are pivoted on non-acceptance of the idea of revolution, on its re-
jection.

Relations of Production, all the material economic relations that
take shape between people in the production, distribution, exchange and
consumption of the means of subsistence. These relations are based on
the form of property. i.e., people’s relation to the means of production.

Religion, a system of notions, feelings and actions expressing people’s
faith in the supernatural. R. is a fantastic, distorted reflection in peo-
ple’s minds of the real (natural and social) forces that control their
daily life, a reflection in which these forces assume the form of unearth-
lv. supernatural forces.

Religious Consciousness, a form of social consciousness in which the
phenomena of real life are given a fantastic, illusory reflection.

Religious Ideology, a totality of ideas about god, the world as a
whole, nature, the society and man being developed by theologians and
religious philosophers. R.I. takes the form of a conception laying claim
to a harmonious explanation of the world, whereas in actual fact that
explanation is internally contradictory, illusory and fantastic.

Renewal of Culture, development of cultural institutions, norms aid
traditions in the course of which these undergo a reconstruction, change
and qualitative evolution.

Republic, a form of government under which all the supreme organs
of state power are either elected or formed by representative (national)
institutions (parliaments), and the citizens enjoy personal and political
rights.

Revisionism, a review of Marxist-Leninist propositions under the influ-
ence of reformism (right R.) or anarchism and voluntarism (“left”
R.), which emerged as an opportunist trend in the working-class move-
ment of the late 19th century, spreading to the social-democratic and
the communist movement. Right R. denies the revolutionary role of the
working class under present-day capitalism and advocates “pluralism”
in Marxism. while “left” R. fuels extremist trends.

Revolution, the mode of transition from a historically obsolete for-
mation to a more progressive one, a radical turning-point in the system
of the socicty’s economic, social, ideological and other relations.

S

Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph (1775-1854), objective idealist,
representative of classical German philosophy.

Science, a field of human activity aimed at obtaining knowledge
about reality and at a theoretical synthesis of such knowledge. As a form
of social consciousness, S. reflects diverse aspects of reality and evaluates
these on the strength of the results of special research.

Scientific Administration of the Society, an administrative process
involving the use of scientific knowledge about the objective laws of de-
velopment intrinsic to a given society and their conscious application
in the interests of all its members. for the benefit of social progress.

Scienitfic and Technical Revolution, a qualitative transformation of

191

the productive forces with the conversion of science into a crucial factor
in the development of production, into a direct productive force.

Scientific Communism, one of the components of Marxism-Leninism
which gives a theoretical substantiation and brings out in a consistent
way the forms and uniformities of the working people’s strugele for
their rights. the revolutionary transformation of the bourgeois socicty, and
the building of socialism and communism.

Scientism, a world outlook which exaggerates the importance of scien-
tific knowledge as the main condition of man’s orientation in the world.
Absolutising the methods and results of cognition in the natural sciences.
the advocates of S. seek to apply these to the social sciences.

Self-consctousness (of an individual), man’s assessment of his world
outlook. interests and behaviour motives, an integral assessment of his
own self. The individual’s S. is socially conditioned and is the starting
point of his attitude to the surrounding world.

Slaveholding System, the first antagonistic-class formation in man-
kind’s history, which emerged as a result of the disintegration of the
primitive-communal system. S. S. rested on the institution of slavery;
its basic classes were slaves and slave-owners.

Small Group, a type of social group whose members are jin direct
personal contact with each other and which is marked by definite emo-
tional relations connected with specific values and norms of behaviour,
refracted in a peculiar way through social (including class) rela-
tions.

Social Action, the activity of people as subjects of social relations in
the context of definite historical conditions. S. A. is a mode of resolu-
tion of social problems and contradictions based on a clash between the
interests and requirements of the main social forces of a society.

Social Being, the objective (independent of consciousness) process
of human life and activity in the society. connected with the produc-
tion (and reproduction) of the objects and conditions without which
human life itself would be impossible. S. B. is determined by the re-
lations into which people enter in the process of the production of mate-
rial values (see Social Consciousness, Fundamental Question of Philoso-

phy).

Social Classes, big groups of people distinguished by their place in
the society's system of social production. their relation (often enshrined
in law) to the means of production, their role in the social division
of labour, and by the mode of acquiring and the dimensions of the share
of social wealth at their disposal. In an antagonistic society, classes. as
Lenin, put it, “are groups of people one of which can appropriate the
labour of another owing to the different places they occupy in a defi-
nite system of social economy” (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol.
29, p. 421). The society’s division into classes (just as its intra-class
differentiation) is connected with the historically transient forms of the
division of labour and the relations of property in the means of production.

Social Consciousness, a reflection of social being in human conscious:
ness determined by the objective conditions of social being. S. C. is the
spiritual aspect of social being and exists in the form of views, ideas, and

192

notions connected with man’s theoretical and practical mastery of the
surrounding world, with a transformation of reality (see Social Being,
Fundamental Question of Philosophy).

Social Group, an association of people based on their joint involve-
ment in definite types of activity, a community of relations. ideals, in-
terests, goals, pursuits, and so on.

Soctal Institution, an element of the social structure, a_ historical
form of the organisation of social life and its regulation. S. I. regulates
relations between people and so ensures social stability. S. Is. include def-
inite establishments, social norms, and cultural patterns which deter-
mine steady forms of human behaviour. In a class society, S. Is. are of
a class character.

Social Interaction, (1) mutual influence of social phenomena within
the framework of one and the same process of social life; (2) intercourse
between people as social subjects effected through typified (and often
depersonalised) forms peculiar to a certain level of intercourse and
regulated by a system of social norms and value orientations.

Social Interest, actual requirements as a cause of social actions and
events lying at the root of the immediate motives, ideas, thoughts and
other inducements of the individuals, social groups and classes involved
in these actions and events.

Social Norms, rules and models of behaviour generally recognised in
a given society. S. N. help to adjust and regulate social interaction be-
tween individuals and groups. S. N. are historically changeable. Class
societies are usually marked by a coexistence of different systems of
S. N. (morality, etc.).

Social Philosophy, a philosophical analysis of social life, an exami-
nation of its most general conditions and uniformities.

Social Relations, diverse connections that take shape between sepa-
rate groups, classes and nations, and also within these in the process
of economic, political and social activity of their members, who are the
subjects of these relations.

Social Revolution, a radical transformation of the society’s socio-eco-
nomic structure as a result of class struggle.

Social Stratum, a social group which lacks some of the features of
a class and occupies an intermediate position in the socio-class structure
of the society.

Social Structure, the whole body of connections and relations existing
in a society and determined by the character of the division of Jabour,
social institutions, and relations between classes in that society.

Social System, a system of social and political (state) organisation
characterised by definite economic-production and ideological (super-
structural) relations.

Social Theory, a set of ideas, views and conceptions used to study
social reality as a whole or any of its aspects in connection with other
phenomena of the society’s life. S. T. examines the problems of the
society as an integral social organism in the unity of the various aspects
of its functioning and development.

Social Type (of individual), an individual possessing definite proper-

193

ties characteristic of a specific community (group, class, nation, stratum,
estate, etc.).

Social Uniformity (regularity), a totality of interrelated laws, an
objective. recurrent and essential connection between social phenomena
and between separate stages of the historical process, characterising
the society’s progressive development.

Socialism, (1) the first phase of the communist socio-economic form-
ation. S. arises as the result of a triumphant socialist revolution, which
puts an end to the domination of private property in the means of pro-
duction and to man’s exploitation of man; (2) scientific S.. a component
part of Marxism, the theory developed by Marx, Engels and Lenin, which
substantiates the historical inevitability of the communist formation and
the principles and ways of its construction.

Socialist Democracy, a form of state power that takes shape as the
result of a socialist revolution and the establishment of a proletarian
dictatorship (which make it possible to involve broad strata of the
working people in running the society and the affairs of state), peo-
ple’s power based on the real economic and political equality of all
citizens.

Socialist Revolution, the highest type of social revolution which marks
the transition from an antagonistic to a non-antagonistic socio-economic
formation (to the communist formation, whose first phase is socialism).
S. R. completes a protracted stage of class struggle under capitalism
and creates prerequisites for dismantling its state apparatus, eliminat-
ing private property in the means of production, class and national
antagonisms, developing the democratic system of social and economic
administration and management and building socialism.

Society, a totality of all types of joint human activity. These types
of activity historically differ, depending on the socio-economic system,
but it is precisely the interaction between them that creates a definite
type of social organisation, a definite social set-up. Socio-economic for-
mations are the concrete historical stages of the society’s development.

Socio-Economic Formation, the society at a definite historical stage
of development with its intrinsic mode of production, economic basis
and a corresponding political, ideological and juridical superstructure.
Mankind has gone through the primitive-communal, slaveholding, feudal
and capitalist socio-economic formations, and is now in the epoch of
transition to the communist formation.

Sociology, a discipline studying the functional uniformities of diverse—
big and small—social system within the framework of the society as
a whole, the laws of its functioning and development.

Soviet Power, a form of the working people’s political power (exer-
cised through the Soviets representative, electoral organs of people's
power), which asserted itself in the USSR as a result of the Great
October Socialist Revolution of 1917.

Spencer, Herbert (1820-1903), English philosopher and_ sociologist.
one of the founders of positivism.

State, the main institution of the political system of a class society
engaged in administration and the protection of its economic and social

194

structures. In an antagonistic-class society, S. is a political organisation
of the economically predominant class. As an instrument of power, S. is
meant to protect the existing order and suppress the resistance of other
classes. Its historical forms depend on the form of government (see Dic-
tatorship of the Proletariat, State of the Whole People).

State of the Whole People, a form of socialist state, a political orean-
isation of the people guided by the working class. Its purpose is to
build a classless communist society with social self-governance.

State-Monopoly Capitalism, a stage of monopoly capitalism marked
by a coalescence of capitalist monopolies with the power of the state
in order to maintain and strengthen the capitalist system.

Subject, an individual or a social group as the vehicle of matcrial-
practical activity and cognition, the source of activity directed at the
object.

Subjective Factor (in history), the activity of the subject--the work-
ing masses, classes, parties and individuals--aimed at changing and
developing (or preserving) the objective social conditions. S. F. includes
different levels and forms (political, ideological, etc.) of action by the
subject.

Subjectivism, a world outlook that ignores the laws of nature and
the society, which are objective and independent of human consciousness,
and absolutises the active role of the subject and his consciousness.

Superstructure, the whole body of political, ideological, legal and
ethical relations, views and institutions which springs from a definite cco-
nomic basis, is interconnected with it and exerts an active influence
on it.

Survivals, social relations, traditions, customs, norms, standards of be-
haviour, views and ideas of the past retained under a new social sys-
tem, at a higher level of economic and social development.

ch

Technological Determinism, a non-Marxist conception according to
which the level of technological development allegedly determines the
type of social set-up, the social structure, level of consumption, and so
on. T. D. lies at the root of the conceptions of “industrial” and “‘post-
industrial” societies.

Theory, a system of views and ideas in a definite field of scientific
knowledge which seeks to interpret and explain the phenomenon being
studied and presents a relatively coherent picture of its connections
and relations with other phenomena of reality and of its development
uniformities.

Tradition, the socio-historical and cultural legacy of the past pre-
served in the society and handed down from one generation (group.
class) to another in the form of denite institutions, norms, values, cus-
toms, and so on.

Tribe, a type of ethnic community and social organisation which

emerged in the pre-class society based on ties of kinship between its
members.

195

U

Utopian Socialism, a trend in social thought comprising the doctrines
connected with the pre-scientific stage in the development of notions
about an ideal social system, a system with full social equality of all its
members and without any exploitation of man by man. These doctrines,
however, do not point out any real ways leading towards such a society.

Vv

Values, material and spiritual objects and phenomena capable of meet-
ing certain requirements of an individual, class or the society as a
whole and serving as ideals, precepts and goals of human activity.

Voluntarism, (1) an idealist trend which regards will (an ability
to choose) as the supreme principle of man’s being. The principle of
V. was consummated in German idealist philosophy of the 19th century
(Arthur Schopenhauer); (2) a subjective-idealist view of history which
denies its objective laws and interprets the essence of the historical proc-
ess in an arbitrary way.

Vulgar Economism, a view of history, which, in contrast to the Marx-
ist view, purges the historical process of conscious human activity as
its intrinsic element. V. E. was developed in the conceptions of so-call-
ed economic materialism.

Ww

Working Class, under capitalism—a class of wage-workers who are
deprived of the means of production and are obliged to sell their la-
bour-power to the capitalists, spending a sizeable part of their working
time in toiling for the latter. It is the main motive force of the society’s
renewal in the process of its transition from capitalism to socialism and
communism. In the socialist countries, the working class together with
all the other working people has become the master of the whole social
wealth and has emancipated itself from exploitation once and for all.

World Outlook, an integral system of views on the world (nature,

the society and thought) which determine the individual’s value orien-
tation and activity.

REQUEST ‘TO READERS

Progress Publishers would be glad to
have your opinion of this book, its
translation and design and any sugges-
tions you may have for future publica-
tions.

Please send all your comments to 17,
Zubovsky Boulevard, Moscow, USSR.

Progress Publishers

will soon publish

RAKITOV, A.,
Historical Knowledge

In this book the author analyses
logical structures with the help of
which historical reality is described
and the connection between historical
truth and ideology is revealed. Also
discussed are the nature of the philos-
ophy of history and empirical histo-
riography, the modern concepts of
science, the scientific status of pro-
fessional historical knowledge and
historical and scientific descriptions.
Much space is devoted to the problem
of historical conceptualisation. The
concepts of historical fact, historical
truth, the laws of history, the struc-
ture and content of historical time,
the specifics of historical explanation
and forecasts as well as the interrela-
tionship between historical and na-
tural scientific knowledge are all
touched upon. A number of polemical
problems are also referred to.

The book is intended for philos-
ophers, sociologists, historians and
anyone interested in the philosophical
aspects of historical science.

Progress Publishers

put out recently

VLASOVAT.,
Marxist-Leninist Philosophy. A
Visual Study-Aid

This book expounds the basic prin-
ciples of Marxist-Leninist philosophy
with the aid of diagrams, charts and
other illustrative material. It is in-
tended for those studying the funda-
mentals of philosophical knowledge.

Study aids put out in English
by Progress Publishers, Moscow:

1. Marxist-Leninist Philosophy. A
Visual Study Aid. 1986. Dia-
grams, tables, _ illustrations.
Compiled by T. Vlasova

2. Kharis Sabirov, The ABC of
Social and Political Knowl-
edge. 1986

3. Communism: Questions and
Answers. Issue 7. 1987

4. V. Kultygin, Youth and Politics.
1987

Philosophy
and Social
Theory:

an Introduction
to Historical
Materialism

This study aid is a philosophical and historico-
sociological introduction to the problems of his-
torical materialism, presented in a popular and
systematic form. The author traces the emergence
and spread of the Marxist theory of social devel-
opment since the mid-19th century to our day.

He deals with matters relating to the balance
between dialectical and historical materialism,
shows the basic principles and main categories of
Marxist social theory, and criticises anti-Marxist
conceptions which distort the scientific achieve-
ments of historical materialism.

A glossary of terms used in Marxist philosophi-
cal and sociological literature will help the reader
to get a better understanding of all the problems
of philosophy and social theory considered in the
book.

Progress Publishers